Re: Are there things that don't evolve?

Debbie I am glad you have found this list. I hope you keep asking
questions.

There are naturalistic explanations for "upward" evolution as you call it.
In other words how can things become more complex, or more "sophisticated"
without God directing things.?
I am not advocating naturalism. But there are some theories that explain
this naturalistically. Spend some time researching "the Baldwin effect" and
"evolutionary convergence".

If you are interested in electronic simulations, you should check out
Conway's Game of Life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

----- Original Message -----
From: "Debbie Mann" <deborahjmann@insightbb.com>
To: "Asa" <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:44 PM
Subject: RE: Are there things that don't evolve?

> Thank you for all your responses. Wayne, I like your comments about 'why
> do
> things evolve upward?'. In the same thought process as 'The Clockmaker'
> argument, it seems totally illogical that they do - unless there is a
> 'Programmer'. I learned at some point how complex DNA is, and I have tried
> to operate certain non-intuitive electronic devices by mathematically
> trying
> all combinations which could conceivably work. I also have studied
> combinatorics and statistics. It just doesn't make sense to me that things
> evolve upward unless God is directing things.
>
> A fundamentalist, Bible thumping Christian, who is also a biologist (is
> that
> a word?) assured me that he has seen upward evolution in slugs and frogs.
> I
> believe it.
>
> But, I do not believe it can be undirected.
>
> I could accept downward diversification with the natural selection of
> traits
> in beings that were less advanced than the master parent race. But,
> statistically, how can anyone justify greater complication? If it were a
> theory which had not been seen evidentially - wouldn't you all reject it
> as
> being improbable to the point of being ridiculous?
>
> Debbie Mann
> (765) 477-1776
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> Behalf Of Dawsonzhu@aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 12:27 PM
> To: deborahjmann@insightbb.com; asa@lists.calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [SPAM]RE: Are there things that don't evolve?
>
>
>
> Deborah Mann wrote:
>
>
>
> 'Descent'? Doesn't evolve' indicate 'ascent'? Evolution bothers me
> theoretically because it defies the law of entropy. Change by
> simplification
> wouldn't bother me - but change by complication does. I'd love it if
> your
> definitiion was the only 'evolution' there was.
>
>
>
> One thing is that you're confusing the meaning of descent (expressed
> as a direction), and descent (expressed as ancestry), as already pointed
> out. But I also see that you are conflating evolution with upward
> direction
> in progress. Although it just so happens to be the case that life on
> earth
> appears to have progressed from a possibly simple RNA world to a world
> of cells, and from a world of cells to something as complex as a human
> with a mind and ability to know God and worship Him, there is nothing
> in evolution itself that implies any direction is actually to be
> expected.
>
> Evolution simply moves from where it is. There actually is little
> reason why the complexity should increase except that during the process
> of natural selection here on earth, somehow, this situation was
> dominantly
> favored. Hence, first we see this increase in complexity over time, and
> we
> infer that the direction is upward, but there is nothing within evolution
> and
> the process of natural selection that says that it must be so.
>
> In addition, the process of natural selection involves a very complex
> system
> dependent on a multitude of factors including the conditions in the
> earth's
> environment, the competition between different organisms, and even
> competition within the species.
>
> So the notion that some scientists seem
> to express that intelligent life is somehow inevitable, is really a faith
> statement,
> and so far at least, SETI is listening, but we haven't heard anything.
> And that
> alone should raise serious doubts about that claim; although I will
> stress
> here
> that even if we do hear something genuine over the cosmic airwaves,
> whereas
> it will force us to modify our theology, it does not change the message
> of
> the
> gospel. That Jesus came here only reflects how much more we were in need
> of salvation and Grace, not that we were somehow the most special. At
> any
> rate, your feeling that things should not naturally progress higher and
> higher
> is correct in that respect.
>
> Since we do not know the reason, as a scientist, I would first look for
> some way to discover the mechanism that drives this progression.
> Natural selection certainly is part of it. Within our social system, we
> select out the "best and the brightest" to end up in the high places.
> But, a question to think about, is that enough to make progress?
> Similarly, in the contest for food, the strongest animals would probably
> win out, although here the word "strong" takes on different meanings
> depending on what is most likely to perpetuate the organisms as a
> whole.
>
> Up to here, I've said little about God or why we should care about
> salvation, and I think this is why we find ourselves so often in conflict
> with people who are not familiar with science, so just bear with me for
> a little longer.
>
> My job as a scientist is to look for ways to explain how a system
> changes due to the manipulation of some parameters. Because
> of the extreme complexity, as far as I know, we still don't have
> a good explanation for why the direction appears to always be up.
> To suggest that part, I've mainly pointed out words like competition,
> natural selection, etc. These are certainly factors that can
> encourage some direction. But one would still have to ask why
> it didn't stop with real survivors like ants, roaches and other
> organisms that many of us loath. I think it is difficult at that point
> at least to know exactly why, but, though it is very tempting to
> suggest that maybe there is this God (speaking now as a Christian),
> as a scientist, I cannot ask God to perform tricks for me like a
> mouse in a cage, I must work with the tools I have. Should I make
> progress in my understanding, using these tools, I am obliged to
> report it. But the issue of how God is working in this process is
> something I would ask myself. Maybe the universe is all "front loaded"
> with a tendency toward greater complexity. At any rate, you should
> recognize that any claims about us evolving further into some superior
> and far advanced organism (of course obviously more moral -- with
> sneering sarcasm on the "of course"), are all nonscientific claims
> as far as I know. We have no proof that it should go that way, all
> we know is that for some strange reason, the complexity of the
> organisms has, up to now at least. Further, the moral progression,
> though we do see this I think in the historical progression of
> scripture and working from the old testament to the new testament.
> Our moral understanding is dependent on God coming to us, not
> our discovery. Without God, we are nothing.
>
> Now, the issue with God saying the creation is good. We may punish
> a dog for doing something we don't approve of, and the dog will know
> that we will punish it, should it repeat that offense. But if a dog
> kills
> a human being for example, we do not say the dog was unethical, do
> we? The dog doesn't know God, the dog only know you. You can know
> God, so you have a duty to God to be moral, but the dog does not;
> though I think ones Godly character should even shine through and be
> brightly reflected from the behavior of the animals you care for. Now
> then again, cats? well aha. .... let's go on. (just kidding) So I don't
> see
> the issue of natural selection there reflecting evil or something like
> that as some people try to read into evolution because there is
> death and all that.
>
> Moreover, that we share a common ancestry with other organisms
> does not mean that we should play by the rules of evolution or
> any of the animals we observe. We can know God, and therefore we
> have obligation to be moral. Though morality often coincides with
> results we can see from evolution, it is not at all a one to one
> correspondence. Evolution cannot teach us follow Christ, and even
> staunch atheists like Dawkins recognize that you must teach altruism.
> Whereas there are some instances of it in nature we can explain, Jesus
> dying on the cross for our sins is "a stumbling block to the Jews and
> foolishness to the Gentiles." It was the same then when Paul wrote
> that, and it is the same now. We are asked to have faith that this is
> what God wants. We know that in the world, evil men get away with
> many things unpunished and the righteous are sometimes cruelly
> oppressed. But we must go on in faith trusting that God is in control,
> even when we really find ourselves wondering.
>
> So at the heart of your original question, that sense of direction of
> evolution is some consequence of the way this universe is, but why
> it is, is not in the domain of science. That God planned it that way
> is what we Christians believe, but because we cannot measure God,
> we have to accept this as a matter of faith.
>
> By Grace alone we proceed,
> Wayne
>
>
Received on Sat Mar 25 19:22:42 2006