Many thanks for the kind response. I wrote a response of my own, agreeing with some points and disagreeing on others. It struck me as too long for a comment, so I posted it here https://benjaminkerstein.substack.com/p/religion-and-the-rational Many thanks again.
Thanks in advance for your response, which I haven't read yet, but look forward to attempting to deal with. I will do my best to keep my comments in your response section.
> There is one other problem with Darwinism I have seen mentioned in only one place, but never anywhere else. I read this in a secular book about the mysteries of science. It mentioned a number of things on a level suitable for laymen, including dark matter and dark energy. One mystery it mentioned had to do with the separation of primitive one-celled animals into male and female genders.
> Think about that for a moment. How did a primitive unicellular organism develop two genders? Did one organism somehow split all by itself into a male and female, both of them with intricate yet fully functioning reproductive organs?
I realize that's not your main point, but there is a simple explanation for this. Initially the organism didn't have male and female genders. It would send out ungendered gametes and one of these would use with another gamete from the same species to form a new organism, there are still some algae that use basically this strategy.
However, there are two strategies such an organism might use to spread itself, it can send out as many gametes as it can and hope some of them fuse with other gametes and then successfully grow into a new organism, or it can concentrate its effort onto relatively fewer gametes and equip them with more resources. The Nash equilibrium here is a mixed strategy, and that is the origin of the distinction between sperm and eggs.
This is the simplified explanation, I can go into details if you're interested.
I suspect the person how wrote your book, or at least his source was aware of this, but given the current climate in academia it's safest to pretend to understand as little as possible about gender.
The book was written years ago, maybe even as much as 20 (I don't remember the name and the title). So I could have put in the qualification that it was an old book, and who knows what might have been published in the last ten or twenty years?
Secondly, you referred to the Nash equilibrium. Here is a brief explanation of it:
"Sufficient conditions to guarantee that the Nash equilibrium is played are: The players all will do their utmost to maximize their expected payoff as described by the game. The players are flawless in execution. The players have sufficient intelligence [!] to deduce the solution."
So, does the origin of the distinction between sperm and eggs require some superintending "sufficient intelligence"? And what else could that be except God? Though someone else might suggest advanced extraterrestrial life forms.
Also, has that theory about the origin of the distinction between sperm and eggs been confirmed by laboratory experiment? Or is it only a speculative explanation of how the distinction might possibly have come about?
Finally, and most importantly, that does not explain the origins of male and female reproductive systems. It does no good for sperms and eggs to be laying about without storage (female) and delivery (male) systems. Those are highly complex and would have to be complete in order to function, since a partial system would be inoperative and useless, just as a partial car engine is inoperative.
The whole system has to be in place and functioning, by accidental variation, by a highly complex causal chain of happy accidents. This requires an operative intelligence, which does not exist in a secular Darwinist scenario.
There are theistic evolutionists, who believe that evolution is a scientific fact, but it was started and guided by God to achieve definite results. This is not a popular option. The secularists do not want God to be involved, and religious people of various sorts are not inclined to look to science for explanations of origins.
Here is a link from an article of 2008 from Science Daily which shows they had not solved the problem by that date anyway. It starts off by saying "Research could finally provide evidence of the first stages of the evolution of separate sexes, a theory that holds that males and females developed from hermaphroditic ancestors." So that means the evidence has not yet been found, but this new research might, maybe, perhaps, could provide the missing evidence..
The article says that the findings, derived from the study of plants, "also apply to animals (via the unified theory) and provide the first evidence in support of the theory that the establishment of separate sexes stemmed from a genetic mutation in hermaphroditic genes that led to male and female sex chromosomes."
But I question the relevance of plant biology to animal biology, at least when it comers to reproduction. Apparently they have covered this objection with some sort of "unified theory" but whether animal sexual reproduction has anything to do with plants is still questionable, in my opinion. Was that theory just devised ad hoc, without any real evidence, to justify the whole project in the first place?
> So, does the origin of the distinction between sperm and eggs require some superintending "sufficient intelligence"?
Just basic natural selection.
> Also, has that theory about the origin of the distinction between sperm and eggs been confirmed by laboratory experiment? Or is it only a speculative explanation of how the distinction might possibly have come about?
Well there exist species that demonstrate nearly every step along the path.
Is it rational to look at the earth and all that is in it, man's ability to reason, build, and even land on the moon, to the incredible complexity of the human body and the fact a helpless baby can become an adult, and not see God's clear design? Only if one clearly does not want to see design. The odds of any of these things just happening is about as likely as giving a monkey a keyboard and he managing to write something equivalent to Shakespeare. Thanks to God for your answers. One can read the Holy Scriptures for years and not get much from them. Only God can reveal them and enlighten the mind and convict the heart. Let us so live worthy of the name, Christian.
I agree, it all depends on God, and your last sentence about living worthily of these truths is especially important.
"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
"Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
"Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?" 2 Peter
That is something sadly lacking in my own life, and in the church as a whole - holiness and godliness.
"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" Hebrews
Many thanks for the kind response. I wrote a response of my own, agreeing with some points and disagreeing on others. It struck me as too long for a comment, so I posted it here https://benjaminkerstein.substack.com/p/religion-and-the-rational Many thanks again.
Thanks in advance for your response, which I haven't read yet, but look forward to attempting to deal with. I will do my best to keep my comments in your response section.
> There is one other problem with Darwinism I have seen mentioned in only one place, but never anywhere else. I read this in a secular book about the mysteries of science. It mentioned a number of things on a level suitable for laymen, including dark matter and dark energy. One mystery it mentioned had to do with the separation of primitive one-celled animals into male and female genders.
> Think about that for a moment. How did a primitive unicellular organism develop two genders? Did one organism somehow split all by itself into a male and female, both of them with intricate yet fully functioning reproductive organs?
I realize that's not your main point, but there is a simple explanation for this. Initially the organism didn't have male and female genders. It would send out ungendered gametes and one of these would use with another gamete from the same species to form a new organism, there are still some algae that use basically this strategy.
However, there are two strategies such an organism might use to spread itself, it can send out as many gametes as it can and hope some of them fuse with other gametes and then successfully grow into a new organism, or it can concentrate its effort onto relatively fewer gametes and equip them with more resources. The Nash equilibrium here is a mixed strategy, and that is the origin of the distinction between sperm and eggs.
This is the simplified explanation, I can go into details if you're interested.
I suspect the person how wrote your book, or at least his source was aware of this, but given the current climate in academia it's safest to pretend to understand as little as possible about gender.
The book was written years ago, maybe even as much as 20 (I don't remember the name and the title). So I could have put in the qualification that it was an old book, and who knows what might have been published in the last ten or twenty years?
Secondly, you referred to the Nash equilibrium. Here is a brief explanation of it:
"Sufficient conditions to guarantee that the Nash equilibrium is played are: The players all will do their utmost to maximize their expected payoff as described by the game. The players are flawless in execution. The players have sufficient intelligence [!] to deduce the solution."
So, does the origin of the distinction between sperm and eggs require some superintending "sufficient intelligence"? And what else could that be except God? Though someone else might suggest advanced extraterrestrial life forms.
Also, has that theory about the origin of the distinction between sperm and eggs been confirmed by laboratory experiment? Or is it only a speculative explanation of how the distinction might possibly have come about?
Finally, and most importantly, that does not explain the origins of male and female reproductive systems. It does no good for sperms and eggs to be laying about without storage (female) and delivery (male) systems. Those are highly complex and would have to be complete in order to function, since a partial system would be inoperative and useless, just as a partial car engine is inoperative.
The whole system has to be in place and functioning, by accidental variation, by a highly complex causal chain of happy accidents. This requires an operative intelligence, which does not exist in a secular Darwinist scenario.
There are theistic evolutionists, who believe that evolution is a scientific fact, but it was started and guided by God to achieve definite results. This is not a popular option. The secularists do not want God to be involved, and religious people of various sorts are not inclined to look to science for explanations of origins.
Here is a link from an article of 2008 from Science Daily which shows they had not solved the problem by that date anyway. It starts off by saying "Research could finally provide evidence of the first stages of the evolution of separate sexes, a theory that holds that males and females developed from hermaphroditic ancestors." So that means the evidence has not yet been found, but this new research might, maybe, perhaps, could provide the missing evidence..
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081120171328.htm#:~:text=These%20findings%20also%20apply%20to,male%20and%20female%20sex%20chromosomes.
The article says that the findings, derived from the study of plants, "also apply to animals (via the unified theory) and provide the first evidence in support of the theory that the establishment of separate sexes stemmed from a genetic mutation in hermaphroditic genes that led to male and female sex chromosomes."
But I question the relevance of plant biology to animal biology, at least when it comers to reproduction. Apparently they have covered this objection with some sort of "unified theory" but whether animal sexual reproduction has anything to do with plants is still questionable, in my opinion. Was that theory just devised ad hoc, without any real evidence, to justify the whole project in the first place?
> So, does the origin of the distinction between sperm and eggs require some superintending "sufficient intelligence"?
Just basic natural selection.
> Also, has that theory about the origin of the distinction between sperm and eggs been confirmed by laboratory experiment? Or is it only a speculative explanation of how the distinction might possibly have come about?
Well there exist species that demonstrate nearly every step along the path.
Is it rational to look at the earth and all that is in it, man's ability to reason, build, and even land on the moon, to the incredible complexity of the human body and the fact a helpless baby can become an adult, and not see God's clear design? Only if one clearly does not want to see design. The odds of any of these things just happening is about as likely as giving a monkey a keyboard and he managing to write something equivalent to Shakespeare. Thanks to God for your answers. One can read the Holy Scriptures for years and not get much from them. Only God can reveal them and enlighten the mind and convict the heart. Let us so live worthy of the name, Christian.
I agree, it all depends on God, and your last sentence about living worthily of these truths is especially important.
"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
"Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
"Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?" 2 Peter
That is something sadly lacking in my own life, and in the church as a whole - holiness and godliness.
"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" Hebrews