Eddie writes: " Why else would there be something like 10 columns here praising the creative power of “randomness”?"
It would appear that there is not a universally consistent use of the term “randomness” … otherwise the phrase would be a reference to the ‘creative power’ of non-random Natural Selection.
George
As far as I know, randomness and natural selection still play key roles in all evolutionary theory. To be sure, Shapiro sometimes sounds like he’s dismissing them, but I assume that’s hyperbole. Are you really suggesting that stochastic processes play no role in evolution?
You seem to be missing my point: you haven’t shown that what’s presented here is in any kind of conflict with contemporary theory. Maybe it is – I certainly don’t read everything that’s written here – but I’d have to see something specific to evaluate it.
Eddie, your response seems to continue being non-responsive. . .
You write: "Not once on this site have the views of Margulis, Shapiro, Wagner, Newman, Altenberg, etc. been even mentioned, let alone discussed. etc etc "
Do you have reason to believe that what BioLogos HAS publicized is at odds or in conflict with contemporary theory?
George
Eddie, your posts on ID here have been very helpful - I learned a lot. I also think it shows the heart of your interest and concern, which is valuable to understand. I do think that there are at least 3 problems with EC reconciling with ID that need to be mentioned. 1) As you said there are ID’ers who really are YEC’ers or OEC’s. 2) And, because of problems with some of their theories, the American Association for the Advancement of Science has come out against ID and 3) In addition, many Christians are not necessarily supportive of ID. Those reasons make it problematic for EC to get in cohorts with ID.
Regarding “God guided,” as you said even ID will not use that term. I think that it has become a loaded term that puts up a red flag for scientists who obviously are bound and determined to try to search to find all the answers to any ‘gaps’ (And history suggests danger in taking stands that may backfire on you badly when more evidence comes out). It also seems to rule in “active fine-tuning” for evolution which short-circuits the option for extremely detailed “front-loading,” which I do not see as an anemic God work, but an incredibly powerful God work.
As I’ve noted before BioLogos has made a strong stand in “What We Believe” some of which is: “God ordained evolution … a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God… God created humans…” and other passages.
Nevertheless, I am also concerned how there should ideally be a short term which more quickly and clearly telegraphs BioLogos belief about God’s active involvement in evolution for the sake of Evangelicals. I personally am going to emphasize “God-directed evolution” or “God-designed evolution” more when I need a short-hand term to communicate with Evangelicals.
God-Designed sounds like a quibble in there somewhere… even though you don’t intend a quibble at all.
Eddie, can you describe how Applegate and Louis’s excessive emphasis on “randomness” affects BioLogos, if they are using a front-loaded view anyway?
Our job is not to police the whole discipline of Evolution … but to make sure our discussions with Creationists are fundamentally sound.
via those God guided cosmic rays you have been talking about that were emitted by stars 10 million years ago. 
Indeed… my job is VERY different. My job is keep you from running people out of the group because of your excessive fixation on terminology to the detriment of the discussion.
If neither Applegate nor Louis have endorsed or implied front-loading, then they either do not grasp the theological implications, or they do not YET have the correct view.
I have yet to see a God-Directed interpretation of Evolution that actually works Theologically and Scientifically without Front-Loading … and certainly BioLogos doesn’t have to defend erroneous Evolutionary views in order to stay out of your doghouse, right?
George
Eddie, are you too modest? I have frequently examined and re-examined the wisdom of continuing to exchange posts with you …
As far as I understand the structuralists, Wagner(*) in particular, I’m pretty sure I disagree. In what I’ve read of him, he views random mutations as playing essentially the same role that they’ve always played. What he’s offering from evo-devo is a complementary perspective, or better a larger perspective, on the space in which random mutations and natural selection are operating. Shapiro may be a different case, but his arguments have struck me as overblown and not anything like as fruitful as what the structuralists are offering. But that’s based on very limited exposure.
Incidentally, unless I’m mistaken an emphasis on random mutations is not actually part of the Modern Synthesis. The MS was focused on shifting frequencies of alleles, not on new mutations. It was Kimura who really made the fixation of new mutations the center of evolutionary theory. At least that’s my understanding.
(*) I assume you mean Günter Wagner here. Andreas Wagner’s work could also be considered a kind of structuralism, and it is even more concerned with random mutations.
I’ve read little of the BioLogos site, but have read several books by BioLogos leaders. My primary reason for challenging your statement was that I think it represents a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. I’m not an evolutionary biologist, but I am a geneticist (computational biologist, in terms of job title) whose work has overlapped heavily with evolutionary biology. Specifically, I’ve done a lot of work studying natural selection – in humans, in malaria parasites, and now in viruses.
In my understanding of the field, natural selection operating on random genetic variants is still absolutely central to adaptive evolution. I’ve worked with both evolutionary biologists and developmental biologists, and I’ve heard hundreds of talks about various aspects of evolution, and read hundreds of papers on the same subject. Those interactions are admittedly a biased sample, but in them, natural selection acting on (implicitly or explicitly) random mutations has been one of the two major themes; the other is genetic drift, also acting on random mutations. There’s plenty of awareness that selection operates with all kinds of constraints, and that different levels of selection can interfere and interact in complex ways, and that epistasis is important, but the core principle really hasn’t changed.
I think it’s certainly true that mutation+selection is only the very beginning of understanding evolution; that’s why I think the structuralists are essentially right. In the same way, you can’t understand why airplanes fly or turbines work just by understanding the collisions of individual gas molecules; you need more comprehensive theories like aerodynamics. But the importance of aerodynamics in no way undercuts the reality that at base, it’s still randomly moving, colliding gas molecules that you’re talking about.
Yes, I’m a Christian, but I doubt that’s relevant to this discussion.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.