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

I am reordering the email so others can see the comment thread more
clearly. I started this whole thing off by making an analogy of
radiating grapefruit in order to have red pulp with random mutation
and natural selection. The purpose of this radiation is to increase
the number of random mutations to select from for redness.

> >>> <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 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> 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 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 [sic, it was my
> point] was making, but in any case I
> find the natural vs. artificial dichotomy to be utterly vacuous.
>
> Steve Matheson

On Feb 18, 2008, at 1:06 PM, 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.

There may be a distinction between artificial and natural selection if
you know a priori which it is. The problem is that you cannot detect
which kind it is without this a priori knowledge. For example, the
archer who either artificially or naturally selected against King
Ahab. He appeared to shoot his arrow randomly (natural selection) but
that arrow had purpose (artificial selection), nonetheless. We know
this only because God told us. Without that a priori knowledge we
couldn't know. Thus from a scientific standpoint the distinction
truly is without substance. (There's a synonym that starts with a v
that I will avoid in order to preserve the decorum and thus the sanity
of this list. :-) )

I also believe you are making too much of the difference between pre-
implantation genetic screening and the orca. Both have traits that
are not being selected for that are nevertheless heritable and have
influence on the survivability of future generations. Both the genetic
engineer and the orca have unintended consequences, the former because
of his finitude and the latter because of the lack of self-awareness.
The orca and the human differ with respect to the responsibility for
their actions, obviously. With respect to the actions themselves,
though, there is more of an analogy between the human and the orca
than between the human and God since God is not subject to the law of
unintended consequences. The problem again here is the secret will of
God is precisely that and thus undetectable. From both a theological
and scientific basis -- absent revelation from God -- the task of
Intelligent Design is in my opinion a fool's errand. I am not denying
Psalm 19 and other related Scriptures, nor teleological arguments,
however. Rather, it is the divorcing of special and general revelation
in order to make ID more scientifically and politically salable that I
have problems with.

This thread has caused me to want to move in a slightly different
direction. I am collecting my thoughts for a future post about the
analogies here with the debate over Genetically Modified Organisms
where similarly the distinction between that and "normal breeding" is
in my opinion overblown.

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 16:26:19 2008