RE: [asa] Origins: Francis Collins and ID

Mike said:

You say evolution isn't really trying to get anywhere, but then you say
it is keeping what it "likes" and throwing away the "bad."

I agree evolution is brainless and not a personal thing. What I mean is
... if a change is beneficial, it will be kept due to natural selection.
If harmful, it will be shunned or die out due to not being hardy enough
to survive. I made a mistake of personalizing evolution... you are
right (too many people do that... I hear and catch famous scientists
doing it too).

(I started writing a whole lot about the culture at Intel and how it is
so evolutionary, but I then remembered these posts are available on the
internet from a google search so I deleted it... it wasn't all
flattering to Intel.)

...Bernie

________________________________

From: mlucid@aol.com [mailto:mlucid@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 5:42 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Origins: Francis Collins and ID

Hey, Bernie,

         evolution isn't really
        
        
        
        
        trying to get anywhere, it simply keeps what it likes and throws
away
        
        
        
        
        bad things, correct?

You say evolution isn't really trying to get anywhere, but then you say
it is keeping what it "likes" and throwing away the "bad." Isn't
keeping what it likes and throwing away the bad the same as evolution
trying to "get somewhere"? I say it is all about trying to get
somewhere. To me, evolution is our creation by the hand of God and that
hand is reflected in your words "keeps what it likes" and "throws away
bad things." But that's just natural selection. We're now into
extra-natural selection.

As humans evolved by adhering to our instincts (our original faith or
fealty to the demands of Creation) we were eventually blessed with an
ever greater portion of the image of God by the emergence of reason. At
that point we are required not just to be faithful to the demands of
Creation for our survival, but we had to be faithful to our emerging
instinct for the Creator, as well. Of course we screwed it up (the
Fall) and now we're hard at destroying ourselves from too much highly
evolved reason (high tech weapons) and not enough highly evolved
instinct (faith and love). It's no stretch to say that our survival
hinges on faith in God and the teachings for us to love and to forgive
each other, or otherwise wind up in the paleontology books of a more
mutually enamored, naturally faithful species. Extra-natural (willful)
selection of faith-based behavior is the survival trait de jour for
modern humans To me, evolution (survival) is all about God, these
days.

-Mike (Friend of ASA)

-----Original Message-----
From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 2:18 pm
Subject: RE: [asa] Origins: Francis Collins and ID

George Cooper,

I see one difference. I was kind of thinking of the eye, and how to get

there. Your analogy goes the other way... start with building blocks

and see what you get after a bunch of trials... evolution isn't really

trying to get anywhere, it simply keeps what it likes and throws away

bad things, correct? The eye is the result (or ear, brain, etc.).

However, which your analogy of throwing software subroutines together,

seems like given enough time it could create something wonderful, but

most likely it would just create reams of crap... kind of like the

monkeys typing for infinity, trying to match Shakespeare... I just can't

grasp it, but maybe that's my fault.

Still, by studying the complexity of the eye as an engineering marvel,

it baffles the mind how evolution can make that... baffles my mind,

anyway.

David Campbell, I read your response, but all the evidence for evolution

of an eye would also fit the framework of God directing evolution, too.

Would you have objection to God-guided evolution (God personally

manipulating DNA), and if so, why? Simply because it must be a

naturalistic explanation to be science (God is not allowed)? If God

isn't allowed in personally fiddling with the DNA, is that more of a

Deistic Evolutionist stance than Theistic Evolution?

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
<mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu?> ] On

Behalf Of George Cooper

Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 3:04 PM

To: asa@calvin.edu

Subject: Re: [asa] Origins: Francis Collins and ID

Hi Bernie,

You might like to know that what David has stated was somewhat known at

the

time of Darwin, who argued against Paley's claim that "the eye was a

sure

cure for atheism". Rudimentary eyes were known in the 19th century, and

today we see this more clearly. [I'm tyring to improve my puns, but

having

little sucess.]

David said: "We manage with a lot fewer colors than some birds."

Indeed, they posses four color cones to our three. Further, the

responsiveness for each of the bird's cones do not overlap the spectral

range of the other cones, at least not the few graphs I've seen. Our

color

cones overalap which complicates color determination. Perhaps our

brains do

a better job than the birds at coloration, but I do not know if this has

been established. Regardless the birds have the advantage.

Whitetail deer only have two color cones, but one cone gives them the

ability to see some UV, violet, and faint blue better than we can.

[Keep

this in mind when sneaking into a deer blind before sunrise; they are

probably watching us all the way up.] Their larger aperature also gives

them greater ability to see in dimmer light than we can.

Assuming you are experienced in programing, there is likely a very good

analogy that will help you understand evolution's developmental

strength. I

doubt this attempt will be all the good, but allow me to try....

Imagine starting with a 10 line algorithym that had some functional

ability.

Combine this with a thousand other small algorithyms and if any

combination

has improved functional use, then keep it. Let the larger, combined ones

attach to both larger and smaller ones. If any of these have a

functional

use, keep them. Allow variations in each line of code so that they get

tried and tested, too. How large of a program can come from this

process

that builds upon itself?

The important element is what determines if a program has "functional

use".

Life is the name for that program and natural selection, with branching,

is

the descriptive process.

Hopefully, you or another can offer a superior analogy, but I hope you

see

the power from building up from a low form to a higher form. This

process

comes at a price as there is much failure and energy is required at

every

point along the way. Fortunately, the white Sun does a nice job of

providing most of the energy needed. [Radioactivity is the energy

source

for some deep, oceanic organisms.]

GeorgeA

>

> --

> Dr. David Campbell

> 425 Scientific Collections

> University of Alabama

> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"

>

> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

________________________________

size=2 width="100%" align=center>

More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?nci
d=aolcmp00050000000003> !

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 5 13:23:18 2007