Sadly the debate was poisoned by both sides. Darwinists misrepresented the fact when they say that evolution is strictly random and not a rational scientifically understandable process. Furthermore now that it is very evident that Darwin was wrong on this point they have not accepted this correction and improved the theory in such a way as to reconcile their view with theistic creation so as to bring some peace to this war.
Theology has not lost the debate over guided evolution. It and philosophy have won it, which is the reason why science had better wake up and smell the coffee, and get with the program.
This is such a strange phrase to me. Do you mean ateleological or non-guided? There are many ârandomâ processes at work that are constrained by various laws of nature imposed on them such that they donât appear random as many of us imagine it.
What do you mean by this? You do realize that evolutionary biologists do try to understand the processes and even if we understand it- there can still be a ârandom component.â
What did he say now again and why do his quotes matter so much in evaluating modern evolutionary science?
You want scientists to publish papers on what now? How does one even go about writing a scientific paper on the hand of God throughout history?
Separate topic but what do you mean by this? I know you like to speak of environmental factors that âguideâ evolution, is that correct? If Iâm remembering that correctly, then all thatâs left for the religious philosopher to do is specify what mechanism God uses to control the weather and geological processes to help settle these scientific questions.
First of all let me say that this is not what I mean, but what people who have labeled themselves NeoDarwinist mean. In particularly I am referring to Dawkins & Co. and the role they play as spokespersons for evolutionary thought. They definitely mean ateleological and non-guided, unless you think that the selfish gene guides evolution.
You are right. Evolution is not actually random, Dawkins & Co. only claim it is, because Natural Selection as Survival of the Fittest is not a law of nature, it is a myth. Evolution is claimed to be random to disguise a gap in the theory and make a place for No God.
The processes they study and try to understand are genetic processes or Variation. That they understand, but Natural Selection? No. How much of a text book on evolution is about Natural Selection?
âThus from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object that we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals directly follows.â
If one believes that survival of the fittest is the scientific way that nature worked to create humans and make America great, then that is how you will act to make America great again.
Again evolutionary thinking needs to come up with an explanation for Natural Selection better than Survival of the Fittest.
All I have asked is for scientists to recognize the importance of ecology to evolution and how it empowers Natural Selection. Ecology is a science is it not, even though Dawkins fought tooth and nail against Lovelock and Margulis. Now he is opposing the new ecologically based theories of E. O. Wilson.
We know the way God created and controls the climate (weather) and physical geological processes to make our planet a suitable home for we humans. God created the universe to be our home and us to be in Godâs Image. That is clear because it happened. If someone thinks that this happened by chance, then they are not thinking clearly. It happened for the very reason most good things happen, because someone made it happen.
Which âDarwinistsâ are saying that evolution is strictly random? I am not aware of any. All the âDarwinistsâ I am aware of have natural selection as part of the process which is a non-random process.
â[Evolution] obviously canât be theory of random chance. If it was a theory of random chance it couldnât possibly explain why all animals and plants are so beautifully ⌠well designed. , ,[W]hat Darwin did was to discover the only known alternative to random chance which is natural selectionââRichard Dawkins, reference
Letâs say I grow up some bacteria and plate them on some agar containing antibiotic. The next day I find that just 1 out of every 200 million or so bacteria survive and produce colonies on the plates. Those surviving bacteria all share a common mutation in a specific gene which causes them to be resistant to that bacteria, and that mutation was not found in the bacteria that founded the population. What would you call that if not natural selection?
Then how do you explain sequence conservation in shared genes between species? How do you explain the sequence divergence of introns and exons within the same gene?
@T_aquaticus, yes of course, and it shows that natural selection is based on adaption to the environment or ecological niche.
But what you have done is take some observations which appear to be accurate and give them a label, Natural Selection. Now a theory is not made up of one observation or even a limited number of observations.
Now I know that you know that I have used the extinction of the dinosaurs as another instance of Natural Selection. As far as I can tell and the response I get from others, Darwinian evolutionists have not developed the theory behind ecological natural selection beyond a few observations much as you have made.
â[W]hat Darwin did was to discover the only known alternative to random chance which is natural selectionâ.
For the most part evolutionists including many of those who support BioLogos say that plants and animals are not designed. They agree that design indicates intelligence and intelligence means a personal designer, which it does.
What Dawkins is saying as that Darwin found a different type of explanation for Creation, and that is Creation through natural processes and natural law, as opposed to a individualistic designed approach which seems to be accepted as the Paley approach.
Of course theology can learn from science, just as science has learned from theology. That is what BioLogos is about, learning from and listening to each other.
The problem with Darwin was he did not specify a mechanism for Natural Selection so it was a gap in our understanding into which No God was able to slip, an important step in the creation of the No God of the Gaps. It is only relatively recently that Ecology has taken its rightful place in the sciences and this process has been revealed. We can see that how God structured the natural world so that the emergence of humanity, the intelligent observer of our rational world, was made possible and even probable,
The irony of this process is that the ideology of Dawkins & Co. has decided that nature is not intelligently structured so it could not produce rational humanity.
What do you mean by ânatural selection is based on adaption to the environment or ecological nicheâ? In the example I gave you, the bacteria without the mutation failed to reproduce. They didnât adapt. Only 1 in every 200 million bacteria had the mutation which allowed them to reproduce in that environment, and in the experiment I am talking about the mutation occurred before they were even exposed to antibiotics.
So how do you explain this? How is it that only 1 in every 200 million bacteria have the mutation? Why do all of the bacteria at the end of the experiment have a shared mutation? What is the mechanism you are putting forward?
You are only looking at the teeny, tiny tip of the iceberg. The rest of the massive iceberg lies in the genetic data and in population genetics.
You are trying to change the subject. Dawkins specifically said that evolution is non-random. Did you miss that part? Will you continue to misrepresent what Dawkins is saying?
The reason why a few bacteria survived is because they were better adapted to survive the antibiotics than the remaining bacteria. That is what natural selection does. It selects out those who are not adapted and selects in those who are. Natural Selection is the way that God through nature makes it possible that all life forms are working together to maximize the resources of the ecology. This is symbiosis, not survival of the fittest.
Dawkins also said that life has no meaning or purpose and fatal bus accidents are random without a cause⌠Finally he said that we are survival machines who are governed by our DNA.
symbiosis definition interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, typically to the advantage of both.
So the antibiotic is an organism?
This is the poster child for âsurvival of the bacteria most fit to reproduce in the presence of an antibioticâ which you keep saying is not correct. AKA Survival of the fittest.
Help me beaglelady. How do I get off this carousel.
It is a favorite of @Relates. Here are some select quotes from over the past several years with links to posts which are indicative of a revolving carousel. Basically Roger has figured out something that all these scientists donât seem to understand and nothing can change his mind.
Were you here for the millions of âMany TEs say thisâ post? This particular person chased me around the forum trying to stuff ID books up my nose and down my pants.
In the end I think the theist who expresses frustration with atheist/darwinists who wonât acknowledge that selection is indirectly God ordained is on the same footing with the atheist who gets exasperated by theists always looking for a gap in which to insert God.
Neither side will succeed in âprovingâ that God does or doesnât play a role in creation. Evolutionary creationists will have to settle for arguing that God could play such a role in evolution and atheist/darwinists will have to settle for arguing that God need not play a role. No one is going to come up with a slam dunk proof which will win the day.
The only camp actively looking for proof would be ID folk. Of course they have to first prove evolution is wrong and then find some proof of a designer. That is as they say around here a mighty long row to hoe.
I wonder if I can get a clarification of how âdarwinistâ is being used here. Is a nonbeliever who accepts evolution a darwinist? I would have thought that to be a darwinist as it is being used here, one had to believe that evolution shows God had no hand in creation. Personally I donât think that is true.
Thank you for your observation. No, an antibiotic is not an organism, however if I am not mistaken the chemistry of antibiotics is closely related to the chemistry of life.
What I was referring to was the concept of âsymâ which is working with as opposed to the concept of survival of the fittest which is âstruggling against.â If you are going to build a theory, you need more than one example and you need a common principle. The reason why some bacteria survived in this example is because they were better adapted to the new environment, not because they won some struggle with the other bacteria for limited resources.
The usual example in this area is the well known E.coli experiment where a strain of E.coli which has previously been unable to use citrine in an oxygenated atmosphere changed so that it was able to do so. This does show that ânatural selectionâ does happen, but not because of a struggle against other bacteria for scarce resources, but adaptation to the environment to better use the resources available.
The favorite example of Dawkins & others which shows that they do not understand the real character of Natural Selection is: The predator vs the prey, because this is not even a struggle for scarce resources, but the way that nature or ecology makes the best use of all resources for all of Godâs creatures.
If pain and death are a problem, which they seem to be for some people, then evolution and God Who created evolution are responsible. However ecology demonstrates the wise and good economy of God which allows the most good to the most of Godâs creatures, and gives humans the ability to be free rational and loving beings, created in God own Image.