Jonathan, it would seem the best 2 biblical texts are :
Romans 1:20 reads, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made…”
For the apostle Paul, God has been evident from the very beginning by direct reflection on the natural world. And, significantly, it is God’s invisible supernatural attributes that are apparent.
Psalm 19:1–2
“The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.” This is a non-scientific declaration that the skies speak to us of God’s character.
However I was responding to the article to which Jon gave me, not to anything else. this article defined natural selection as Survival of the Fittest, not me, although this has been the definition for a long time.
If the definition has changed then we need someone to keep us informed as to what is going on. At one time I suggested that BioLogos do that. It did not respond in a positive manner. In the past I have used Wikipedia as a gauge as to what might be going on, but of course our purists look down at this source.
Changing the wording does not necessarily change the meaning of the definition of natural selection. First let us see how Jon responds to my concept of natural selection. Then we can go from there.
The problem with Natural Selection is the same as with Survival of the Fittest. What is the basis for selection? The definition that I have put forward makes the criterion clear and thus is testable, while the others do not. Only when we solve this problem can evolution be a complete theory.
Here are the paragraphs on defining Natural Selection in that article… I’ll comment on them later today !
Definitions of natural selection It is important to recognize that “natural selection” is not synonymous with “evolution.” Evolution can occur by processes other than natural selection, especially genetic drift. And natural selection can occur without any evolutionary change, as when natural selection maintains the status quo by eliminating deviants from the optimal phenotype.
Many definitions of natural selection have been proposed (Endler 1986). For our purposes, we will define natural selection as any consistent difference in fitness among phenotypically different classes of biological entities. Let us explore this definition in more detail.
The fitness—often called the reproductive success—of a biological entity is its average per capita rate of increase in numbers. When we speak of natural selection among genotypes or organisms, the components of fitness generally consist of (1) the probability of survival to the various reproductive ages, (2) the average number of offspring (e.g., eggs, seeds) produced via female function, and (3) the average number of offspring produced via male function. “Reproductive success” has the same components, since survival is a prerequisite for reproduction.
Variation in the number of offspring produced as a consequence of competition for mates is often referred to as sexual selection, which some authors distinguish from natural selection. We will follow the more common practice of regarding sexual selection as a kind of natural selection.
Because the probability of survival and the average number of offspring enter into the definition of fitness, and because these concepts apply only to groups of events or objects, fitness is defined for a set of like entities, such as all the individuals with a particular genotype. That is, natural selection exists if there is an average (i.e., statistically consistent) difference in reproductive success. It is not meaningful to refer to the fitness of a single individual, since its history of reproduction and survival may have been affected by chance to an unknown degree, as we will see shortly.
Differences in survival and reproduction obviously exist among individual organisms, but they also exist below the organismal level, among genes, and above the organismal level, among populations and species. In other words, different kinds of biological entities may vary in fitness, resulting in different levels of selection. The most commonly discussed levels of selection are genes, individual organisms that differ in genotype or phenotype, populations within species, and species. Of these, selection among individual organisms (individual selection) and among genes (genic selection) are by far the most important.
Natural selection can exist only if different classes of entities differ in one or more features, or traits, that affect fitness. Evolutionary biologists differ on whether or not the definition of natural selection should require that these differences be inherited. We will adopt the position taken by those (e.g., Lande and Arnold 1983) who define selection among
This is the old circular argument theory of survival of the fittest. An allele is determined to be fit if it survives and thrives. It does not explain the how and why of this process, just that it happens because of “differences.”
It is like saying that an aircraft can fly if it can fly. If it cannot, it cannot.
Roger, I beg to differ. The paragraph I have highlighted is the most OBJECTIVE definition of fitness I’ve yet read. It’s a Metric that is completely measureable!
Please actually read the article, and also read the other article which explains why this is not a circular argument. Otherwise there’s no conversation here.
Nor do I. They usually say that there is no such thing as sub-optimal features, that all features are optimal, and when we see something which appears sub-optimal it’s because we don’t really understand what that part of the organism is for anyway, or because we don’t understand God’s Great Ineffable Plan.
No. They understand that organisms which are emergent from evolution, are not “designed”, and that God is therefore not responsible for how they turn out. It’s people who claim God designed all these features, who need to explain why God would include wings which don’t work, eyes which can’t see, and vestigial organs.
I have read the articles. I have explained to you in detail how it is a circular argument.
Now you tell me why I am wrong. If it is so clear that should not be a problem.
My position is clear, SoF is a circular argument. The position of the article is yes, it is until you add the knowledge of moths adapting to their environments. SoF says nothing about adaptation or environment , so how can it explain the fitness of the moths?
In some sense I will side with Eddie on this issue. Yes, God does not micromanage nature, but God clearly causes drought, rain, and other natural phenomena to carry out God’s purposes. It seems to me that the Hebrews were not really concerned about what we would call science. That is one of the major differences between them and the Greeks.
On the other hand the Hebrews believed that YHWH governed history using God’s moral law. Originally this law was covenantal law based on the Decalogue, but then it became universalized and in that sense absolute.
What God the Father did through Jesus the Messiah and the Holy Spirit, was make it possible to reconcile these two great cultures, the faith of the Jews and the philosophy of the Greeks, so that God governs by both moral law and natural law.
It is hard for me to imagine having one without the other, even though many non-believers say exactly that. However they seem to be catching on, although not in a positive manner. I hear the New Atheists saying that there is not natural law or moral law, just random events. This is what Patrick seemed to say.
The problem with the merge of Greek and Hebrew thought is that while Hebrew thought was essentially covenantal, and relational, Greek thought was based on Being and absolute. They really cannot mix, so the Greek view won out in most respects, when it should have been the Hebrew view. Jesus came to bring the message that salvation is based on one’s covenant with God the Father through God the Son and the Holy Spirit, not through obedience of the Law.
In a real sense the New Atheism is an ahistorical affirmation of Greek absolutism as Is Jihadism. Salvation is by “being right,” not by doing right.
No, I just have a different understanding of this subject to you.
Yes. But that does not say “God is in fact responsible for the outcomes of all natural processes which he wills into existence, sustains, and chooses not interfere with”. You are misapplying the verse.
No they don’t. They explain how the organism has built in a work-around to take advantage of the flaw, which nevertheless does not change the fact that the flaw still exists, and so do the negative results.
This suggests you do not understand what a vestigial organ is. It is not uncommon for vestigial organs to have a current function.
Depending on how you define “function”. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still “junk” DNA.
I’ll see you a car with no doors and tell you to keep open the possibility that it is not badly designed, and has a function.
I gave you a link twice which explained in detail how you are wrong.
This shows you do not understand the topic under discussion.
No, not because you disagree. Because you talk about it in a way which demonstrates you don’t understand it.
Fitness is not evaluated at the level of an individual organism. The article I showed you even told you this clearly; " It is not meaningful to refer to the fitness of a single individual". This demonstrates you don’t understand the topic. An organism can survive to the point of reproduction even if it isn’t “fit”, or it could die before reproduction even if it is “fit”. That’s why it is not meaningful to refer to the fitness of a single individual.
Roger, why do you keep saying it is a circular argument? The text of that article CLEARLY sets mathematical measurements for FITNESS!
QUOTES:
The fitness—often called the reproductive success—of a biological entity is
its average per capita rate of increase in numbers. <<< QUANTITATIVE
When we speak of natural selection among genotypes or organisms, the components of fitness generally consist of
(1) the probability of survival to the various reproductive ages, <<< QUANTITATIVE
(2) the average number of offspring (e.g.,eggs, seeds) produced via female function, <<< QUANTITATIVE
and
(3) the average number of offspring produced via male function. <<<< AND MORE QUANTITATIVE
I’m operating on the basis of your established track record of reading X and saying it’s Y. I have read plenty of articles on the eye which explain how the organism has built in a work-around to take advantage of the flaw, which nevertheless does not change the fact that the flaw still exists, and so do the negative results. I have seen those same articles misrepresented by Christians claiming these articles say the eye is well wired after all.
Oh, so when you said it is actually “Biblical theology” and quoted a verse, what you really meant was “it’s derivable on general philosophical principles and Biblical teaching is conformable to it”.
But just as obviously, that doesn’t mean all evil is attributable to Him.
Sorry this just sounds like propaganda.
In contrast, I see Calvin as a tyrannical heretic with blood on his hands. When you have a religion named after you, it’s pretty certain you made it up.
You haven’t identified any deficiency in my treatment of Scripture in that article.
Because that’s all I needed. This was not a journal submission, this was a series of notes on my Facebook page which I later pasted into one document and added an abstract.
No, I established more than that. The Bible uses the language of law to describe how God organized nature, words such as covenant and commandment. I also addressed the qualitative difference between the way the Bible describes the recurring cycles of nature, and the way they’re described by other ANE societies, such as Egypt and Babylonia.
Yes.
I’m sure that’s how they read to you. But that’s not how they read to the earliest expositors of Scripture, or to scholars in this area.
I’m sure you don’t.
No I’m not. As I explained, in other ANE literature the natural systems need to be actively maintained by actions from the gods or by actions from humans. In the Bible this never happens; God sets it all up, and it just works. The sun doesn’t need God to kickstart it again every morning, and the wind doesn’t need the angels to move it around every time it stops working.
Do not be overawed by math. Math is descriptive tool of what goes on, but math does tell you why something happens, which is much more important.
Mathematical models can describe traffic and other movements of animals and people. Mathematical models can describe weather, but does not tell you that hot air rises and cold air descends.
Lou, a person who once blogged on BioLogos, believed that Darwinian Natural Selection was true because of the mathematical models. However when I checked out one of the books that he recommended, which cost more than $100., the author himself in the preface said that this book did not explain how evolution worked, but only how to mathematically depict how it worked.
In other words if a allele is fit, it will increase at a certain rate, which is the same as saying fit alleles survive and thrive, while those who are not fit will not.
That is like saying that a good football team wins more games than it loses. An excellent team wins its conference title, and a possibly great team wins the Super Bowl more than once. These statements may be true in a sense, but really do not say what makes a great football team and have no scientific significance.
Statistics are fine, but by themselves are almost useless. Life and science is much more than statistics. Math itself is circular. 3 + 3 = 6. 6 - 3 = 3. A circular system, which is true, but limited in what it depicts.
Mathematical modeling lets us know that something is going on, but does not tell us how or why. The problem exists when science allows the models take the place of thinking and testing, because it thinks that it already knows how and why, or it does not really want to know how and why. Pride goes before the fall.
To address the original topic (I apologize if this is redundant to something someone else has already said. I stopped reading the comments around #70 because they seemed to be taking a rabbit trail, and my thoughts are geared to the thread’s main subject), @Jonathan_Burke, your article was interesting.
Your summary’s timeline is a good reminder of how different the God of the Bible really was from the cultures that surrounded the Hebrews. By taking the volatile and churlish gods out of the nature equation, God revealed Himself a bit more. It also allowed people to step away from magic as an explanation for nature. Every time, humans learned to see the creation a bit more clearly.
It strikes me as layers being peeled back. And it reminds me of God’s wisdom and His patience with us. Thanks for sharing:-)