Knowing technology when we see it II

 “Poor Design”? Human Skeletal Joints Demonstrate Engineering Genius 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

A new episode of ID the Future completes a talk by award-winning British engineer Stuart Burgess, who explains how the human ankle and wrist joints offer powerful evidence of engineering genius. Burgess is answering evolutionist Nathan Lents, who has argued that human joints are poorly designed and, therefore, evidence against intelligent design and for Darwinian evolution’s blind trial-and-error process. According to Burgess, Lents ignores — and seems to be ignorant of — the many ingeniously engineered features of our joints, leading Lents to make easily refuted claims. For example, Lents says an ankle with fused bones would be a superior design to a healthy human ankle. Not if the person hopes to play squash or tackle any number of other activities that require the suppleness and responsiveness of the human ankle, Burgess notes. Download the podcast or listen to it here. 

Game over? Really? V

Theory in Crisis? Some Cautionary Words

Jonathan Wells 

Editor’s note: We have been delighted to present a series by biologist Jonathan Wells asking, “Is Darwinism a Theory in Crisis?” This is the fifth and final post in the series, which is adapted from the recent book, The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith. Find the full series here.

Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn was criticized for various inconsistencies in his argument, including his tendency to switch back and forth among several meanings of paradigm and theory. More seriously, he was criticized for his relativism because he sometimes wrote as though no paradigm is any closer to objective reality than any other. But it seems to me that Kuhn’s biggest problem was that he himself operated within a paradigm — Darwinism — without recognizing it as such. For example, in opposition to Karl Popper’s view that theories cannot be verified but only falsified, Kuhn wrote that “verification is like natural selection: It picks out the most viable among the actual alternatives in a particular historical situation.”1 

How Science Evolves?

Kuhn even concluded The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by calling his approach “the evolutionary view of science.” At the end of his last chapter he wrote: 

The analogy that relates the evolution of organisms to the evolution of scientific ideas can easily be pushed too far. But with respect to the issues of this closing section [i.e., progress through revolutions] it is very nearly perfect…[T]he resolution of revolutions is the selection by conflict within the scientific community of the fittest way to practice future science. The net result of a sequence of such revolutionary selections, separated by periods of normal research, is the wonderfully adapted set of instruments we call modern scientific knowledge. Successive stages in that developmental process are marked by an increase in articulation and specialization. And the entire process may have occurred, as we now suppose biological evolution did, without benefit of a set goal, a permanent fixed scientific truth, of which each stage in the development of scientific knowledge is a better exemplar.2 

Kuhn’s defense against critics who thereafter called him a relativist was based on the analogy between biological evolution and the history of science. In a 1970 postscript to his 1962 book, he wrote: 

Imagine an evolutionary tree representing the development of the modern scientific specialties from their common origins in, say, primitive natural philosophy and the crafts. A line drawn up that tree, never doubling back, from the trunk to the tip of some branch would trace a succession of theories related by descent. Considering any two such theories, chosen from points not too near their origin, it should be easy to design a list of criteria that would enable an uncommitted observer to distinguish the earlier from the more recent theory time after time…[If such a list can be compiled] then scientific development is, like biological, a unidirectional and irreversible process. Later scientific theories are better than earlier ones for solving puzzles in the often quite different environments to which they are applied. That is not a relativist’s position, and it displays the sense in which I am a convinced believer in scientific progress.3 

In the end, therefore, it seems that even Kuhn admitted that unguided processes do not solve problems or lead to truth; intelligent direction is necessary. 

A Shift Toward Design 

Despite these problems with Kuhn’s argument, we can still benefit from his descriptions of what happens during scientific revolutions. These include (1) the focus on debates over the definition of science; (2) the proliferation of variant articulations of the existing paradigm, which represent growing dissatisfaction among its adherents; and (3) the way defenders of an existing paradigm use all the institutional means at their disposal — including professional journals, membership in professional societies, and funding for jobs and research — to resist the challenger. 

All of these are evident in the current controversy between Darwinism and intelligent design. Whether intelligent design will be the paradigm that successfully replaces Darwinism remains to be seen. But without a doubt, the modern neo-Darwinian model of evolution is a theory in crisis. 

Notes 

1)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 146.

2)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 172-173.

3)Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed., 205-206. 

Ancient Coptic text and John Ch.1

 Coptic John 1:1-18 

The Sahidic Coptic Indefinite Article at John 1:1 

“The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.” – Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, page 5 

What is the primary difference? Lambdin continues: “Indefinite nouns designating unspecified quantities of a substance require an indefinite article in Coptic where there is none in English.” Further, “abstract nouns such as *me*, truth, often appear with either article, where English employs no article.” (page 5)

These are the distinctions that some apologists would make of great consequence when faced with the indefinite article at Coptic John 1:1c. But making an issue of this is a smokescreen that hides either ignorance or outright deception. Why? Because these exceptions have absolutely nothing to do with Coptic John 1:1c. Why not? Because the noun used here, *noute*, god, does not fall into either of the categories mentioned above. *Noute* is not a noun designating quantities of a substance. It is not an abstract noun. Rather, it is a regular Coptic noun which, joined with the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, *ou*, is usually translated by means of the English indefinite article “a”. Therefore, there are sound grammatical reasons for rendering Sahidic Coptic John 1:1c by what it actually and literally says, “a god was the Word.” (Note: In Coptic, the "e" in *ne* is elided with the "o" in *ou* giving neunoute instead of neounoute when the words are spelled together.)

Nothing is gained by verbose, philosophical attempts at explaining that "a god was the Word" is not what the Coptic text “means.” That’s clearly what it says, so why should that not be what it means? To impute a different meaning to what the Coptic text actually says is eisegesis, not exegesis. It is special pleading of the worst kind. It is bringing theological suppositions into the Coptic text that the text itself does not support.

True, the Coptic text is a translation of the Koine Greek text of John 1:1c , but that text also can be translated literally to say “a god was the Word.” The Sahidic Coptic translators were translating the Greek text as they understood it, from the background of 500 years of Koine Greek influence in Egypt. The challenge to those scholars and apologists who argue for a qualitative or definite reading for Coptic John 1:1c is that they have the burden of proof to show clearly, by Scripture references, where else the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before the noun *noute*, god, has a qualitative or definite meaning.

Until they find such verses, their arguments are hollow, shallow, irrelevant, and immaterial.

It is not sufficient to merely suppose and guess that the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before a regular noun has qualitative or definite significance. Show the proof from the Coptic Scriptures.

On the other hand, there are many verses in just the Gospel of John alone where the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article, joined to a regular noun like *noute*, god, is translated with the English indefinite article “a” in Reverend George Horner’s classic English translation of the Sahidic Coptic text, as well as in other Sahidic Coptic literature that has been translated into English.

In simple terms: Apologists and scholars, don’t continue to give us your theological biases, disguised as grammatical treatments. Don’t continue to throw up verbose smokescreens in attempts to hide the truth of what the Sahidic Coptic text says. Your arguments are built on sand.

Show us the proof of your assertions from actual Sahidic Coptic New Testament verses, if you have any. 

Lambdin gives two examples of this usage quite early in his grammar book. For example, on page 17 he gives the sentence *n ounoute an pe*, translatled in the key as “He is not a god.” On page 18 we have the sentence *ntof ounoute pe*, which Lambdin translates as “He is a god.” Not “he is God.” Not “he is Divine.” But, “he is a god.” This same indefinite article – regular noun construction is found at Coptic John 1:1c: *auw neunoute pe pSaje*

Common morphology = Common descent except when it doesn't?

 Fossil Friday: Eurotamandua — Anteater or Not Even Close? 

Günter Bechly 

A very well-preserved fossil mammal from the Middle Eocene Messel pit in Germany was discovered in 1974 and described by Storch (1981) as Eurotamandua joresi. Famous German vertebrate paleontologist Gerhard Storch considered the fossil not only as the oldest fossil anteater (about 47 million years old) but also as the first European representative of this mammal order. This was a true sensation for paleontologists and zoologists alike. The simple reason is that anteaters belong to the group Xenarthra, which includes sloths, armadillos, and anteaters, and is generally believed to have always been an endemic to the neotropical region.  

Extensive Phylogenetic Studies 

A pitched controversy about the biogeographic and evolutionary implications resulted, and speculations ran wild. Extensive phylogenetic studies either affirmed the attribution of Eurotamandua to neotropical Xenarthra (Storch & Habersetzer 1991, Szalay & Schrenk 1994, Höss et al. 1996, Branham & Gaudin 1997, Gaudin & Branham 1998) or challenged it as uncertain (Gaudin 1999), or placed it closer to Pholidota (pangolins) and its fossil relatives Palaeanodonta (Rose & Emry 1993, Shoshani et al. 1997, Rose 1999, Delsuc et al. 2001), or attributed it to a totally independent lineage called Afredentata (Szalay & Schrenk 1998). All these scientists came to very different conclusions, even though they all worked with the same single fossil and its published description. 

Finally, a study by Gaudin et al. (2009) established Eurotamandua as a fossil pangolin, contrary to their own earlier study. This was also supported by the more recent phylogenetic analysis of Kondrashov & Agadjanian (2012). An interesting detail is that Xenarthra and Pholidota were classically considered as related toothless mammals (Edentata) based on morphological similarities, but were shown to be totally unrelated and far removed in the mammalian tree of life based on molecular data (Xenarthra at the very base of mammals or as sister group to Afrotheria, but Pholidota as closest relative to carnivorans deeply nested within Laurasiatheria).  

Yet More Controversy 

However, an attribution of Eurotamandua to pangolins did not prevent further controversy. Szalay & Schrenk (1998) considered the Messel pholidote Eomanis krebsi (attributed to Euromanis by Gaudin et al. 2009) as a juvenile Eurotamandua and thus as synonym of this taxon. This was strongly rejected by Horovitz et al. (2005) based on the leg morphology. By the way: the apparent typical xenarthran joints described by Storch (1981) as a crucial character could not be corroborated by other studies (Rose & Emry 1993, Szalay & Schrenk 1994, Gaudin 1999) and ultimately turned out to be mere artifacts of preparation and restoration of the fossil (Storch 2003). All the other unique anatomical similarities between Eurotamandua and anteaters, that were previously considered as unequivocal synapomorphies (Branham & Gaudin 1997), are now considered evolutionary convergences. These include quite complex features such as horizontal palatal plates and a supplementary bulla tympanica (Storch & Habersetzer 1991). 

Darwinists thus have to appeal to the ad hoc hypothesis of convergent adaptation to similar lifestyles, which of course increases the problem of how a blind evolutionary search process could stumble upon the same complex solutions multiple times. A design perspective can explain such incongruent data much better than a Darwinian perspective, because intelligent designers typically reuse the same innovations and principles in different instantiations. 

References 

of Ernanodon(Mammalia, Palaeanodonta) from Mongolia: morphofunctional analysis. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 32(5), 983–1001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2012.694319.

Rose KD 1999. Eurotamandua and Palaeanodonta: convergent or related? Paläontologische Zeitschrift 73(3/4), 395–401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02988050.

Rose KD & Emry RJ 1993. Relationships of Xenarthra, Pholidota, and fossil ‘Edentates’: the morphological evidence. pp. 81–102 in: Szalay FS, Novacek MJ & McKenna MC (eds). Mammal Phylogeny (Placentals). Springer, New York (NY).

Shoshani J, McKenna MC, Rose KD & Emry RJ 1997. Eurotamandua is a pholidotan not a xenarthran. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 17(Suppl. 3), 76A. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.1997.10011028.

Storch G 1981. Eurotamandua joresi, ein Myrmecophagide aus dem Eozän der “Grube Messel” bei Darmstadt (Mammalia, Xenarthra). Senckenbergiana lethaea 61(3/6), 247–289. https://www.schweizerbart.de/publications/detail/artno/190506103/Senckenbergiana_Lethaea_61_3_6

Storch G 2003. Fossil Old World „edentates“ (Mammalia). Senckenbergiana biologica83(1), 51–60.

Storch G & Habersetzer J 1991. Rückverlagerte Choanen und akzessorische Bulla typanica bei rezenten Vermilingua und Eurotamandua aus dem Eozän von Messel (Mammalia: Xenarthra). Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 56, 257–271. https://biostor.org/reference/183398

Szalay FS & Schrenk F 1994. Middle Eocene Eurotamandua and the early differentiation of the Edentata. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14(Suppl. 3), 48A. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.1994.10011592.

Szalay FS & Schrenk F 1998. The Middle Eocene Eurotamandua and a Darwinian phylogenetic analysis. Kaupia – Darmstädter Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte 7, 97–186.