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)