Jonathan,
With Roger, make sure you exuberantly include the terms “ecology” and “ecological” into the discussion - - then he can hear you.
George
You are right I am a theologically oriented and motivated human as well as a scientifically oriented human, which is what Newton and many other scientists were too. In a real way so are Dawkins and Dennett in that they want their faith to correspond to their science.
However if you read my books I think that you would see that I do have a deep interest in science. There is no contradiction between science and theology except the one invented by certain people fairly recently and these are not scientific issues, but philosophical problems such as teleology over which we disagree.
Actually science and theology are actually converging, rather than moving apart. This conflict we are having now is the death throes of the old order of philosophy, science, and theology trying to maintain its influence.
Your citation concerning common descent and macro evolution does not provide evidence for what natural selection is and how natural selection works. If you are serious, we need a scientific definition of what natural selection is and how it works, and then a clear example in nature or in the lab of that happening.
Newton established the reality of gravity, but did not get how gravity worked right. Darwin established the reality of evolution, but did not get how it worked right. It was roughly 150 years after Newton that Einstein corrected his ideas. It is 147 years after the Origin of the Species.
Darwin wanted his ideas compared to Newton. That must mean that they are not inviolable. Evolution is about how life forms change. Ecology is about how changes in the environment effects life forms.
My theory is that they belong together. It is shared to today by those who subscribe to Niche Construction Theory of evolution. I hope that you have heard of it. If you have not please do your research and I hope that you will find that this theory combines ecology with genetic evolution in such a way as to open broad new vistas to our understanding of the development of life in the tradition of Lynn Margulis.
It seems you are not reading what I write or link to. I have provided a scientific definition of what it is, how it works, and an abundance of examples in the nature and in the lab. If you won’t even read it then there’s nothing more to say.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
This is the link I am getting from the post above. Is that your link or are you going back to your first link?
@Jonathan_Burke wrote:
That’s not the purpose of the baseball bat, that’s the function for which the maker of the baseball bat made the bat.
"Function" and “purpose” are synonyms. They mean the same thing. Case closed.
-
I previously gave you this link, which gives a definition of natural selection, explains adaptation, explains why adaptations have the appearance of design, explains how natural selection works, and provides examples of natural selection.
-
I previously gave you this link, which explains why natural selection is not circular.
-
I previously gave you this link, which explains the misrepresentation of Popper.
I also previously gave you this link, which provides copious evidence for macroevolution and the role of natural selection in this process.
Case reopened. Simply stating something does not make it true.
Very good links, Jonathan!
@Relates, you are skeptical about Macro-Evolution???!?!?!?!? I didn’t see that coming!
Thank you for the clarification. I am afraid that I do not have all day to spend on the internet. I could send you my book which would explain my position in detail if the people at BioLogos do not object.
However I will deal with the circular argument which is basic.
For example, black moths will increase in frequency if trees are dark, and gray moths will increase in frequency if trees are covered in gray lichen. It isn’t just “whatever survives survives”; it is that particular traits are preserved depending on environment. Thus SoF isn’t empty wording, it is a description of events in the real world.
If one defines the Survival of the Fittest as just that, you have a circular argument and certainly neither Karl Popper nor I can not and should not accept that as a testable theory, because it is not.
On the other hand we can agree that black moths on black bark and gray moth on grey lichen are better camouflaged than moths of any other color. The problem with the two statements is that they do not say the same thing. A black moth is not fitter than the gray moth, except on a black background.
If we are to general from the second statement we4 would say: A life form which is better adapted to its ecological niche is more likely to survive and flourish than one which is not.
That is a theory that Karl and I can agree is testable and true. I should think that many scientists and non-scientists would agree. The problem is not that it is true, but it is not the current definition for natural selection. SoF with modification is. The statement above is better because it requires no modification.
The definition is also better because it is ecological and thus unites both of these important disciplines.
If the dictionary says that words are synonyms, they mean the same thing. That does not mean that synonyms don’t have some different connotations, which can be used to make some helpful distinctions as your brain trust group did. Still for practical purposes, such as we are discussing here, purpose and function mean the same thing.
Sorry to be so late to this conversation. I have just read your article, and found it quite wonderful. I especially like your arguments explaining the critical distinction between Christianity and magic, something that many atheists cannot grasp. This is a theme dear to me, and I have written about it a lot, most recently on my blog.
I think your views on natural law and science provide an excellent backdrop to the concepts of evolutionary creationism. I have read some of the thread here, which I find puzzling. Im not sure why so many threads eventually end up on the issue of ID, and what it is. I have great respect for Eddie, and I think that he has a point when he claims that some parts of ID seem to be moving in a positive direction, namely away from magical thinking related to God and his laws. My review on this site of Denton’s book, as Eddie states was mostly positive and hopeful that this could mark a true narrowing of the gap between ID and EC.
But the fundamental issue, (which Denton does NOT fall into in his latest book) is the issue of magic vs. God centered science. As long as ID purports to prove the existence of God through demonstration of irreducible complexity and the impossibility of natural law to explain biological or other phenomena, there will be a problem. I appreciate the salute from Eddie related to my review, and I also salute Denton and Behe for moving further from that position. I look forward to the day when we will welcome either or both of them to Biologos, and eagerly anticipate commenting on their blogs.
Says you. Since @Jonathan_Burke obviously disagrees and again, you saying so does not make it so (for practical purposes).
Keep in mind that exact synonyms are rare. Otherwise we would use one word instead of two. Even the “same word” from different language roots (“swine” and “pig”) have different connotations (to which you allude).
However, your argument is circular:
- Function and purpose are equivalent.
- Because they’re synonyms.
You’re merely restating your premise in different words.
Thanks very much, I am so glad you liked it. I will look at your blog. Two points struck me as I was writing that article.
-
Working through natural laws is God’s standard modus operandi. Evolutionary creationism therefore agrees with well established divine practice, as revealed consistently in Scripture. It just makes sense.
-
The concepts of divinely ordained natural law and order which are found in the Bible, clearly separated true science from the magical thinking of non-Christian religions. This made a significant contribution to the Western scientific continuum. If ID had any real merit, it would have made such a contribution already. But it hasn’t made any contribution at all, despite millions of dollars being thrown at it, and despite three decades of high level research by people with high level scientific knowledge and education. This is significant.
In another article, I will look at the challenge of what is called by some people “suboptimal design”, the idea that certain features of biological organisms are not well optimized for purpose (or are even flawed), and the question of whether an omniscient and omnipotent designer would actually deliberately plan such details into creation.
Yes. In fact I have always objected to the idea that “intelligent” is a good description of the acts of God, as if He were a very clever engineer. The existence of suboptimal design is not unrelated to other issues like theodicy, which some use to try to disprove God as Creator. I would maintain that we are in no position to judge whether God “screwed up” or not.
One thing we do know for sure. While this is not a perfect universe, or a perfect world, and life is no more perfect than the rest of the creation, the fact is that we are here. We are talking to each other in ways the early Christians could not conceive or; in fact my grandfather could not conceive of either. And we are learning more and more about the creation. We are human beings, who get together in groups and sing beautiful hymns, we praise God and we strive to be better. That is a miracle within the laws of nature, so God must be pleased. Things are working out.
Roger, I think you should NOTICE that the definition you THINK is being used is NO LONGER being used.
Even something as “popularized” as Wikipedia gives DUE JUSTICE to the definition of Survival of the Fittest for which you have consistently clamored!:
"The term “natural selection” was popularised by Charles Darwin who compared it with artificial selection, now more commonly referred to as selective breeding. Variation exists within all populations of organisms. . . . Throughout the individuals’ lives, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.)"
“. . . Factors that affect reproductive success are also important, an issue that Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection, which was redefined as being included in natural selection in the 1930s when biologists considered it not to be very important…”
Maybe this would help …
Romans 2:14-16 “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”
[DISCUSSION] “Here, “nature” is contrasted to “law,” the latter referring in context to the written Mosaic law. Frequently interpreters think Paul is invoking Stoic ideas that had passed through the Judaism of his day. The Stoics taught the existence of natural law, which by virtue of nature supposedly applies to all people and is essentially unchangeable.”
You could start by reading the article with which I opened this thread.