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

But are we all not products of Creation, and therefore essentially
natural, including what we do with our distinctively human capacities?
It seems to me that the differentiation lies more in the conscious
stewardship domain, since we aware and rational (and spiritual) beings
have this ability to ponder moral/ethical considerations and the
implications of our actions when extended into the future. "To whom
much is given, much is required" (expected). I don't disagree with your
endpoint, just these seemingly "artificial" distinctions. :-)

I wonder if a catfish's or dolphin's actions are artificial as well in
the preceding discussion because they are based on capacities
(electrical and acoustic, respectively) that extend beyond my own.

JimA [Friend of ASA] - I hope nothing interesting happens for the
rest of the day - I've reached my post limit!

David Opderbeck wrote:

> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com> (
> DEFANGED_javascript:top.opencompose('drsyme@cablespeed.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:randyisaac@comcast.net> (
> DEFANGED_javascript:top.opencompose('randyisaac@comcast.net
> <mailto: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/> (
> parse.pl?redirect=http://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 (
> 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.
> Ãf¢Ã,ÂEURÃ,ÂoeThatÃf¢Ã,ÂEURÃ,Â^(TM)s what nature
> does,Ãf¢Ã,ÂEURÃ, 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 Ãf¢Ã,ÂEURÃ,Â" 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.
> Ãf¢Ã,ÂEURÃ,ÂoeIÃf¢Ã,ÂEURÃ,Â^(TM)m doing the same
> thing,Ãf¢Ã,ÂEURÃ, he said, still
> toying with the dice.
> Ãf¢Ã,ÂEURÃ,ÂoeIÃf¢Ã,ÂEURÃ,Â^(TM)m not doing anything different
> from what nature does.
> IÃf¢Ã,ÂEURÃ,Â^(TM)m not
> using anything that was not in the genetic material
> itself.Ãf¢Ã,ÂEURÃ,Â
>
>
> 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
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> (
> DEFANGED_javascript:top.opencompose('majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu>','','','') ) with
> "unsubscribe asa"
> (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> (
> DEFANGED_javascript:top.opencompose('majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu>','','','') ) with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
> <mailto: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 15:57:48 2008