Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

i
On Feb 18, 2008, at 7:36 AM, David Opderbeck wrote:

> You might also add: 3: is "neo-Darwinism" metaphysically random?
> It depends on how one defines the term.
>
> On Feb 17, 2008 9:05 PM, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
> Thank you all for a lot of helpful comments.
> Let me wrap up and summarize this thread.
>
> 1. Is the biological theory of evolution truly random? While there
> are elements of randomness, boundary conditions and environmental
> factors provide a great deal of direction. Simon Conway Morris has
> shown a lot of evidence of convergence though the underlying factors
> for it are not yet known.
>
> 2. Does the randomness of evolution mean that it is undirected? Yes--
> from a natural viewpoint. This means we know of no physical
> mechanisms that influence genetic variation on the basis of the
> needs or characteristics of any subsequent organism. No--from a
> divine viewpoint. This means that God's purposes in guiding
> evolution need not involve a scientifically detectable influence on
> genetic variation.
>
> Randy
>

If you want more precision and avoid Gregory's deliberate (and I would
suggest slanderous) mis-definition of terms, I would let the
proponents define the term neo-Darwinism. Such a definition could goes
something like this:

The synthesis of population genetics with evolution as originally
proposed by Darwin of descent with modification. Population genetics
study allele frequencies under the influence of the four evolutionary
forces of natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow.

Note there is no explicit reference anywhere to random. Random is
implied by genetic drift and mutation both of which has been observed
many, many times outside of an evolutionary context, e.g. in the
current HapMap project (www.hapmap.org). The concept of allele
frequencies is also random. In classical Mendelian genetics the allele
frequencies distribute randomly allowing the binomial theorem to be
applied.

Note that randomness, however defined, only comes from the genetics
portion of the neo-Darwinist synthesis. I don't hear any creationist
or ID proponent berating the (shudder) materialist genetic worldview.
It cannot properly be called Darwinist because modern genetics post-
dates Darwin. Both YEC and ID have conceded genetics at which point
they have conceded the whole randomness question. It is also
interesting to see what else Michael Behe has conceded:

1. Common Descent
2. Natural Selection
3. Random Mutation

What he hasn't conceded is that the random mutation has enough reach
either on the basis of not being able to produce irreducibly complex
"machines" or having an insufficient rate with so-called double
mutations (e.g. drug resistance in the Plasmodium parasite). Behe's
analysis is fraught with problems that has been raised here, in PSCF,
and elsewhere I will leave it to the reader as a Googling exercise to
explore this further.

At this point the question might be raised give all this randomness is
this somehow inconsistent with design and by implication Christianity
since Christianity rests on a Creator God? Consider the example of
Ruby Red Grapefruit. In 1927, Hermann J. Muller found that ionizing
radiation causes (shudder) random mutations. Since then chemical
mutagens have been found.

Botanists have taken advantage of the randomness to produce better
crops by increasing the mutation rate through radiation. See here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html

> Pierre Lagoda pulled a small container from his pocket and spilled
> the contents onto his desk. Four tiny dice rolled to a stop.
>
> “That’s what nature does,” Dr. Lagoda said. The random results of
> the dice, he explained, illustrate how spontaneous mutations create
> the genetic diversity that drives evolution and selective breeding.
>
> He rolled the dice again. This time, he was mimicking what he and
> his colleagues have been doing quietly around the globe for more
> than a half-century — using radiation to scramble the genetic
> material in crops, a process that has produced valuable mutants like
> red grapefruit, disease-resistant cocoa and premium barley for
> Scotch whiskey.
>
> “I’m doing the same thing,” he said, still toying with the dice.
> “I’m not doing anything different from what nature does. I’m not
> using anything that was not in the genetic material itself.”
>

Thus, we have neo-Darwinist evolution in action controlled by an
intelligent designer. This should not be surprising since Darwin used
this exact same analogy in Origin when defining natural selection. If
a human breeder is compatible with all this "randomness", then
certainly the Lord of Heaven and Earth is.

Rich Blinne (Member ASA)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 18 11:51:46 2008