Cuteness

Given atheism and evolution, it's odd we find small furry animals "cute". From an evolutionary perspective, wouldn't it make more sense (such as be better for our survival as a species) to be neutral about cuteness?

If we didn't find small furry animals cute, then we could kill and eat them without hesitation. It's not as if other animals seem to find small furry animals cute. Like foxes don't find bunnies cute. Like sea lions don't think about baby penguins that way. (Not that penguins have fur as such, but you get the idea.)

Perhaps evolutionists will explain it by saying we only find small furry animals that look most like our own babies cute. We see our own babies as cute since it helps us bond with our own babies which in turn helps us want to raise our own babies rather than toss them aside the moment they're born. However, even if so, why should that apply to babies that aren't our own? It's not as if chimps think of other baby chimps as cute when they kill other baby chimps (e.g. here).

Zoological diversity

I just wanted to pick up on what Steve Hays astutely said:

Finally, suppose we ask ourselves what biology would look like if God wanted to create a world with maximal zoological diversity. That would mean you could arrange species along a continuum of similarity and dissimilarity. Some species would be more alike while others would be less alike. Some would occupy the extreme ends of greatest similarity and dissimilarity while others would represent gradations in-between. For any two species, they are either more alike or less alike. You'd have a nearly infinite range of fine-grained variations.

If so, then man is bound to resemble some species more than others, and there will be a few species he most closely resembles. But is that due to common descent, or is that just the inevitable result of God making a world in which he rings the changes on body plans?

If God wanted to make humans completely discontinuous with all other life on Earth, then he could have made our entire genome fundamentally different from all other life on Earth. Perhaps instead of DNA or RNA, God could have based it on something different like XNA. Or God could easily not even use nucleic acid or nucleotides at all. Perhaps he could have used XYZ, ABCXYZ, or whatever.

However, if God did this, then it's possible we would suffer various incompatibilities as a result. For example, perhaps consuming water, plants, and animals on Earth would not give us energy (ATP). Worse, maybe doing so would be toxic to us. Scifi often explores these sorts of things. A human astronaut travels to a distant planet orbiting a distant star, but finds he or she can't breathe in the alien atmosphere. An alien species (a plant or animal analogue) which is innocuous to other aliens in their system is introduced to humanity only to pose an imminent threat to our existence. And so on. Hence, presumably, God would need to make us compatible enough to other lifeforms on Earth so we can all co-exist, etc., but unique enough to reflect his special handiwork (imago Dei). If so, then there would be various degrees of compatibility as well as incompatibility with one another.

Moreover, if God did create us with fundamentally different genetics, I assume secular scientists (among others) would still find a way to argue we're not God's creation. Perhaps they'd argue we're aliens on Earth à la Crick's panspermia theory except applied only to humans rather than all life on Earth, which would be "proof" of extraterrestrial intelligence and civilization, which in turn would somehow evidence God did not exist. In any case, secularists would find a way to conclude heads they win, tails we lose - and "life"? It just happens.

I, robot

Richard Dawkins once said:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Imagine a genius inventor is able to manufacture a human android. Say an android like David 8 in Ridley Scott's Prometheus. But far better (e.g. sans white colored blood, etc.). Indistinguishable from an actual human being.

Of course, one could ask, is David a "living" organism? But given the beliefs and worldview of someone like Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne (e.g. atheism, materialism, reductionism, neo-Darwinism), would there be a substantial difference between David and a living, breathing human being like Dawkins?

If so, what would it be?

If not, then how would an evolutionist like Dawkins differentiate between a "living" human being which evolved and David who is an artificial creation? Say the inventor is the only other who knows and he's not telling! Neither is David.

After all, both appear designed. But real humans (e.g. Dawkins) have come to appear designed due to unguided and purposeless natural processes, whereas artificial humans like David have come to appear designed due to the guided and purposeful intelligence of a genius inventor. That is, real humans have the appearance of design, while artificial humans have in fact been designed.

This scenario may sound far-fetched to many people; it's in the realm of science fiction, naught else. Maybe so. But given Dawkins' worldview, why not...someday? Indeed, Craig Venter "created" artificial life not too long ago. Apparently Venter had even placed a genetic signature or watermark in his synthetic life in order to make it known it was his creation. Not unlike, perhaps, Mr. Weyland placing "W" on the fingertip of his creation David in Prometheus:

So, short of some sort of a watermark or signature in the cell, if it's not possible to distinguish between a real human being and an artificially designed human being, then how could we tell one did indeed evolve according to unguided and purposeless natural processes, whereas the other was intelligently designed?

If we can't, then an outsider might as well conclude David evolved according to evolutionary theory, whereas Dawkins was designed by a genius inventor. But we don't really know because we can't distinguish between the two.

As such, on what grounds could Dawkins aka the Dawkbot say humans merely have the "appearance" of design rather than actual design? Couldn't it go either way? If so, then Dawkins shouldn't be so quick to pronounce the appearance of design over actual intelligent design.

Background to pop gen

Here's some quick and dirty background info for those curious about population genetics. It'll be simplified for wider popular appeal, but hopefully not overly simplified. I won't talk about population genetics itself, per se, since that'd be a bit too time-consuming for me to provide right now. But the background should provide enough knowledge to get people started on learning about population genetics on their own.

1. DNA. The first thing to know is that we're made up of DNA. DNA is a molecule that resides in us and encodes all our genetic information. We can think of it as containing all the instructions for how to make a human being.

2. Genes. DNA is composed of genes. Genes are segments of DNA that give humans form and/or function. Genes are also passed on from one parent to their child.

3. Allele. An allele is an alternative form of a gene. A variant. For example, different eye colors (e.g. blue, brown).

4. Genome. A person's genome is all the genetic info in a single person. This is all the DNA in a person.

Usually when we refer to DNA, we're talking about the DNA in a person's chromosomes aka chromosomal DNA. But there's also what's called mitochondrial DNA. That is, DNA in a person's mitochondria as well.

There are further distinctions but this should suffice for our purposes.

At any rate, a person's genome would include all the DNA.

5. Population. A population is all the organisms in a given set that can interbreed with one another. Actually, this is a very basic definition. It isn't perfect by any means, and debatable. But we'll just stick with this for now.

6. Evolution. A basic definition of evolution is a change in the frequencies of genes/alleles in a given population. Again, somewhat debatable, or at least requiring more elaboration, but we'll move on.

7. According to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, there are at least five factors that can influence the frequency of the genes/alleles in a population:

a. Natural selection. This is based on fitness. This is when the fitter or fittest individuals of a population survive (e.g. thick coated foxes are more fit to survive in the Arctic than thin coated foxes), pass on their genes/alleles, and thus their genes/alleles become more frequent in a population.

b. Sexual selection. This is based on sexual attractiveness. This is when the more sexually attractive individuals of a population mate and have the most offspring, thus passing on their genes/alleles, and thus their genes/alleles become more frequent in a population.

c. Gene migration. This is based on movement. This is when new individuals with new genes/alleles migrate into or out of another population, thus changing the frequency of genes/alleles in a population.

d. Genetic drift. This is based on chance. This is when random chance events (e.g. bugs getting stepped on, floods wiping out half the population) lead to changes in the frequency of genes/alleles in a population.

e. Mutations. This is based on anomalies in the genetic code. This is when mistakes in DNA lead to new genes/alleles.

7. Equilibrium. Specifically, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. A population is said to be in (Hardy-Weinberg) equilibrium when none of the previously mentioned factors are in operation. It also assumes all individuals in a given population capable of breeding are breeding and each produces the same number of offspring.

That is, natural selection is not at work. Sexual selection is completely random. There are no new migrants into or out of a population. There is a huge population size in order to moot random chance events affecting the frequency of genes/alleles in a population. Finally, no mutations ever occur.

8. Finally, as the cornerstone of population genetics, we have what's called the Hardy-Weinberg equation. The equation is: p² + 2pq + q² = 1.

We can think the equation in the following way.

Consider three basic types of genes/alleles. Say we have XX genes/alles representing dominant genes/alleles, xx representing recessive genes/alleles, and Xx representing mixed dominant and recessive genes/alleles.

Accordingly, the "p²" in the equation refers to what's called homozygous dominant genes/alleles. The "q²" refers to what's called homozygous recessive genes/alleles. And the "2pq" refers to what's called heterozygous genes/alleles.

If we know 40% of a given population posses homozygous dominant genes/alleles, then we know p² = 0.4.

If p² = 0.4, then p = 0.63 (approx).

That means q = 1 - 0.63 = 0.37.

While q² = 0.137.

And 2pq = 0.466.

Thus, since we know p² = 0.4, 2pq = 0.466, and q² = 0.137, then we know 40% of the population possesses homozygous dominant genes (e.g. XX), 46.6% of the population possesses heterozygous genes/alles (e.g. Xx), and 13.7% of the population possesses homozygous recessive genes/alleles.

The central dogma

The people groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. And God heard their groaning, and God remembered. God saw the people, and God knew.

Then the LORD said, "I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in bondage to scientism and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters. I know their sufferings, and I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the scientific dogmatists and metaphysical-methodological naturalists, and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with reason and intelligence. And now, behold, the cry of my people has come to me, and I have also seen the oppression with which the secularists oppress them. Come, I will send you to the President of the United States that you may bring my people out of captivity."

So the LORD said to William Dembski and Stephen Meyer, "Go in, tell the President to free my people from the tyranny of the scientific establishment." Dembski and Meyer did as the LORD commanded. In the sight of the President and in the sight of his cabinet he lifted up reason and evidence and sound argumentation and struck down the modern evolutionary synthesis, and the theory turned into nonsense. And the evolutionary paradigm died, and stank, so that the New Atheists could not drink from its source. There was confusion throughout all the land of secular science. But the secular scientists did the same by their secret arts by adding facilitated variation, Gaia hypothesis, macromutation theory, natural genetic engineering, neo-Lamarckian inheritance, ontogenic evolution, phyletic gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, punctuated gradualism, the selfish gene, symbiogenesis, etc. So the President's heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said. The President turned and went into his house, and he did not take even this to heart. And all the evolutionary biological research assistants, doctoral candidates, postdocs, and assistant professors hoping for tenure looked for truth to drink, for they could not drink from these vague half-truths.

Then the LORD said to Dembski and Meyer, "Go in to the President and say to him, 'Thus says the LORD, Let my people go, that they may come and reason with me. But if you refuse to let them go, behold, I will plague all your country with scientific dissent.'" And the LORD said to Dembski, "Say to Meyer, 'Stretch out your hand with your staff over the universities, over the laboratories and over the research centers, and make scientific dissent come up on the land!'" So Meyer stretched out his hand over ivory tower institutions, and scientific dissent came up and covered the land. But the secular scientists did the same by their secret arts and made scientific dissent come up on the land. Richard Dawkins, Henry Gee, Stephen Jay Gould, Marc Kirschner, Richard Lewontin, Lynn Margulis, Ernst Mayr, James Shapiro, John Maynard Smith, E.O. Wilson, Carl Woese, Lewis Wolpert, etc. created various modifications and theories within theories of evolution. And the President hardened his heart and would not listen to Dembski and Meyer.

Then the LORD said to Dembski, "Say to Meyer, 'Stretch out your staff and strike the dust of the earth, so that life might come forth.'" And they did so. Meyer stretched out his hand with his staff and struck the dust of the earth, and life came forth. All the dust of the earth became life in all the land. The secular scientists called upon their secret arts including the clay model, the Miller-Urey experiment, Mycoplasma laboratorium, the PAH and RNA world hypotheses, and panspermia. The secular scientists tried by their secret arts to produce life, but they could not. Then the secular scientists said to the President, "This is the finger of God." But the President's heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said.

Now the secular scientists were more crafty than any other scientist in the field of neo-Darwinian evolution. They said to some Christians, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not believe evolution is true'?" And these Christians said to the secular scientists, "We may believe evolution is true, but God said, 'You shall not believe evolution is true if you want to be rational, neither shall you so much as think about evolution, lest you become irrational.'" But the secular scientists told these Christians, "You will not surely become irrational if you so much as think about evolution. For God knows that when you think about it your eyes will be opened, and you will see the panoply of life, the universe, and everything like God." So when these Christians saw that there was nothing wrong with thinking about evolution, that it was fascinating, that there were endless forms most beautiful, and it made them feel as if they were in step with modern academic and scientific opinion, they took hold of evolution and fed deeply upon it. Then their eyes were opened, and they knew that they were theistic evolutionists. And they joined hands with like-minded scholars including theologians who denied the historical Adam and made themselves an organization called BioLogos.