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

And why exactly must we identify any such thing that comes of human
endeavor as artificial or unnatural? JimA [Friend of ASA]

drsyme@cablespeed.com wrote:

> And one other thing. The analogy of the botanist/breeders is invalid
> because even though the mutations may be random, the selection is
> artificial not natural.
>
>
>
> On Mon Feb 18 11:50 , Rich Blinne sent:
>
> 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
>> <javascript:top.opencompose('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
> <http://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.

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 14:01:18 2008