Hunter says "this" is not Evolution - a problem with definitions?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Relates

On the other hand the Modern Synthesis concerning evolution does not support the existence of the Logos, because, as usually understood, it says that this process is random and not guided.

Roger, natural selection is not random, so the Modern Synthesis says nothing of the sort.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

Ben,

I agree that Natural Selection is not random.

However this does not mean that MS describes it accurately. My position is that it does not.

Stating something does not make it so. Darwin did not get Natural Selection right and neither does Dawkins.

If you can show me who and how someone did get it right, please do. That is exactly what I want. What are the rational criteria behind Natural Selection and how are they applied?

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Swamidass

And to be clear, the debate in the Church has never tracked with the scientific revolution re: evolution. The real hang up is common descent from common ancestors. And this part of evolutionary theory has been rock solid stable through each and every evolutionary theory revolution. That is why we focus on that here.

@BradKramer,

Is this statement factual, that BioLogos is primarily concerned about common descent?

If so then this is a trivial conversation. Since, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary, so it is a silly. Just state the obvious and close the discussion.

[BradKramer]

@Relates

Since, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary, so it is a silly. Just state the obvious and close the discussion.

If only it was that simple, Roger.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

It is that simple if that is the issue,

That is not the real issue, so we need to stop beating around the bush and talk about the real issues.

[BradKramer]

@Relates

That is not the real issue, so we need to stop beating around the bush and talk about the real issues.

It’s one of the “real issues”. Are we supposed to stop talking about the scientific evidence altogether? That doesn’t seem helpful.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@BradKramer

First of all, when you read the latest blog concerning “How I Changed My Mind about Evolution,” you will see that there was only argument against evolution and that was the Bible. It is true that if the Bible is the eternal Word of God, then evolution could not be true. It is that simple.

Of course the Bible does not say that the Bible is the eternal Word of God. Jesus Christ is the eternal Word of God, the Logos. Even so BioLogos does not use this clear Biblical statement and the NT theology behind it to correct the bas theology behind YEC. There is only one validation for YEC and that is Gen 1. If science disproves the Bible, we are in real trouble, so this is the wrong approach.

On the other hand if John 1:1 is the foundation for the Christian understanding of evolution, then there same real serious scientific problems with the MS of evolution, which generally teaches that it is a random process or a process that does not have a purpose or meaning. Also and related, evolution is based on survival of the fittest or continuous struggle. These statements are scientific in that they are part of a scientific theory, but are unproven and false.

The science behind evolution is not simple, and those who claim it is are fooling themselves and doing a disservice to science. BioLogos can so better.