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

Oh no, not that word "vacuous" again! (Steve, that word has a long a
sullied history on this list...)

Isn't there a distinction if one believes that the human "mind" makes human
agency qualitatively different than non-human agency? Human beings are able
to make judgments that other creatures (as far as we know) cannot make in
the same way -- e.g., moral and aesthetic judgments.

Take the debate over pre-implantation genetic screening of human IVF
embryos, for example. In that process, we typically select against a very
limited range of traits (certain genetic diseases and perhaps gender) but we
typically do not select for or against other traits that might provide the
offspring with a disadvantage or advantage. Part of the reason for this
limitation is technological, but to a large extent it's based on moral /
ethical considerations about eugenics.

Even the smartest orca in the universe cannot conceive of the notion of
"eugenics" and its attendant ethical implications. The orca's selective
activity is "intelligent" in a sense, but it does not seem to involve a kind
of "mind" that possesses the degree of self-aware supervenient qualities
that inhere in the human mind. Unless you're a thorough-going materialistic
determinist, you have to concede that the human "mind" allows us to
transcend evolution in a way that does not seem to be available to other
creatures.
On Feb 18, 2008 2:39 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu> wrote:

> You didn't explain why you think artificial selection is distinct from
> natural
> selection. Hungry farmers apply selection. Hungry cheetahs apply
> selection.
> Smart humans apply selection. Smart orcas apply selection. Where's the
> difference?
>
> I think you misunderstood the point that George was making, but in any
> case I
> find the natural vs. artificial dichotomy to be utterly vacuous.
>
> Steve Matheson
>
> >>> <drsyme@cablespeed.com> 02/18/08 2:07 PM >>>
> Because it is clear where an intelligent designer interacts with nature in
> breeding, it is via artificial selection. It is not at all clear where
> an
> intelligent designer interacts with nature in terms of biological
> evolution.
> So the statement :"If a human breeder is compatible with all this
> "randomness",
> then certainly the Lord of Heaven and Earth is," is misleading because the
> situations are not analogous.
>
>
>
> On Mon Feb 18 13:25 , "Stephen Matheson" sent:
>
>
>
> What is the relevant distinction between artificial and natural selection,
> and
> how does it render the "analogy" of plant breeding invalid?
> Steve Matheson
>
> >>> <drsyme@cablespeed.com (
> DEFANGED_javascript:top.opencompose('drsyme@cablespeed.com','','','') )>
> 02/18/08 12:47 PM >>>
> 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 (
> DEFANGED_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 ( parse.pl?redirect=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 (
> parse.pl?redirect=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 â€ÂÂ" 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.â€ÂÂ
>
>
> 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 (
> DEFANGED_javascript:top.opencompose('majordomo@calvin.edu','','','') )
> with
> "unsubscribe asa"
> (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu (
> DEFANGED_javascript:top.opencompose('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.
Received on Mon Feb 18 15:07:18 2008