Spin-Off: ID, Neo-Darwinism, Ev News and Views, Discovery, etc

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

I think it’s pretty clear that nothing is going to change Eddie’s narrative on this topic.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Eddie. Oh, I notice what you write and I take into account the word count spent on a given topic. And yes, you usually manage to tack on a few complimentary sentences to the end of your oft-repeated seventeen paragraph stump speech about how “the TE/EC leadership has failed to…” blah blah blah. I stopped reading those posts “carefully” a long time ago. If that is unfair, so be it.

@Eddie

Christy, do you have any knowledge (that you can share with us) regarding why Darrel’s positive review of Denton on Amazon was pulled down (apparently by Darrel himself)? Does that action signify any scientific change of mind on Darrel’s part, or does it have some other significance?

@Eddie

Have you ever tried writing to [Falk], and posing your questions to him? You might get better results than by the route you are taking here.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

I do not know Darrel Falk, and I have never had any contact with him other than reading his book Coming to Peace with Science. I have spent zero time monitoring his Amazon reviews, and I think it is kind of funny that you think I would have any special insight into their postings or removals. The secret “TE/EC leadership” cabal that monitors your posts here and makes sure to delete things just because you like them, does not invite me to the meetings or copy me on the minutes.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

But I like repartee, Eddie. Repartee makes BioLogos more entertaining.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

Socratic.Fanatic:
What is the Neo-Darwinian playbook and where can I get a copy of the current edition?

[quote=“Eddie, post:8, topic:5335, full:true”]For a more formal statement, see the classic works of the Modern Synthesis (popularly called neo-Darwinism) of the early 1940s by Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, George Gaylord Simpson, and Theodosius Dobzhansky. For more popular and recent statements, see Ken Miller, Finding Darwin’s God, and Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker. And for an educated discussion of the Modern Synthesis, see Gould’s Structure of Evolutionary Theory. For a recent critique, see Shapiro’s Evolution.
[/quote]
Hello Eddie,

A list of names is not a statement. How about if you explain to everyone here EXACTLY what you mean by “neo-Darwinism” in ENTIRELY mechanistic terms, without dropping a single name?

Which mechanisms are included and which are excluded when YOU use the term?

Why do you describe the science using a philosophical term, while you describe the philosophical notion of ID in scientific terms that you use improperly, such as “theory”?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Christy

I have spent zero time monitoring his [Falk’s] Amazon reviews, and I think it is kind of funny that you think I would have any special insight into their postings or removals.

Hello Christy,

I think it’s more revealing than funny–it reveals the extent to which Eddie views this as a team sport and the extent to which he feels his own side coordinates its message.

Your dragging this out of Eddie over several posts is funny, though…

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@GJDS

We need to accept that “random” is constantly used when discussing evolution.

As long as we accept that if it is used as a blanket adjective for mutation, it is incorrectly used, as Preston pointed out in detail.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Eddie

My objection to much writing by EC leaders is that they seem to be trying to harmonize Christian theology with evolutionary theory as it was back in about 1970 – random mutations filtered by natural selection

Did evolutionary theory in about 1970 ignore existing heritable variation in favor of mutations (which Preston Garrison explained do not justify your use of “random” here)?

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

Well, if we can all keep a sense of humor about things, it keeps the team sport more “friendly rivalry” than “death match.”

[beaglelady]

@Eddie

I remember vividly when you made the claim that evolution would proceed just as fast, or almost as fast, if there were never any mutations at all, but only heritable variation. I

He said that evolution would continue to occur for some time if there were no new mutations, since variation already exists in populations.

[Sy_Garte]

@Eddie

But when I and others have asked BioLogos to produce some columns on the evolutionary thinkers most critical of neo-Darwinism (from Margulis through Shapiro to Newman and Wagner) there is no response. There must have been 20 columns on BioLogos trying to harmonize Christian theology with “random mutations” or “randomness” (straight out of the ND playbook), but the existence of the Altenberg Conference and the Third Way group of evolutionary thinkers has been entirely ignored by BioLogos

Eddie

When I first read this, I had a sense that it was not quite accurate. I was looking through the Biologos archives for another reason, and I came across two important posts that seem to contradict your assertion. The first was posted by Kathryn Applegate in October 2015 (I know, ancient history, called “Genes arent Blueprints, they’re Switches” in which she linked to Ard Louis talk at the Summer Biologos conference, and clearly acknowledged the new ways of thinking about evolution. In fact scanning the comments section, I found that you and I were dominating the conversation (not for the first or last time), and some very good points were made by both of us.

More recently (March 3) another Biologos post by Michael Burdett called “The Changing Face of Evolutionary Theory” went into great detail about many of the post neo Darwinist ideas, Neither of us commented on that one, and we might have both missed it.

While Dennis Venema does tend to explain the basics of evolution from the older point of view, that is perfectly appropriate, since he is fundamentally a teacher, and as I learned as a music student, you need to learn the fundamental scales before you can go off and improvise off key. Dennis’ detailed explanations of basic Darwinism should not be taken as some kind of endorsement of the anti EES position of people like Coyne.

So, I think we should agree that Biologos and many other ECs are not as far behind in understanding the new evolutionary trends as you sometimes say they are. Peace

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))]

@Eddie

It would be unwise of you to invoke Preston in your defense here. I remember vividly when you made the claim that evolution would proceed just as fast, or almost as fast, if there were never any mutations at all, but only heritable variation. I remember vividly that Preston asked you for justification of that claim. I also remember that you exited the conversation at that point, and that your claim was never defended.

Of course the neo-Darwinians saw normal heritable variation as contributing to evolution. But they thought that beyond that, random mutations played a major role. You may think they were wrong; if so, that’s your fight, not mine. Take it up with Jerry Coyne or some other neo-Darwinian. Or with Preston. I’ll watch and learn from the debate.

I’m quoting from @Eddie’s post, but this post is really for @benkirk - -

If we took the terrestrial predecessor of the Whale lineage, and immuunized it in some way so that its chromosomes would forever replicate itself perfectly … no errors, no mutations - - -

I don’t see how that creature would ever be able to become a whale. How could there ever be enough hidden variation in a terrestrial creature that would allow it to thrive a mile under water ?

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks, TE (E.volutionary T.heist OR P.rovidentialist))]

@Eddie

I would add that while your modification of my first sentence is fair, my last sentence still seems sound. It is in fact true that BioLogos has, even up until recently, strongly associated evolution with “randomness,”

@beaglelady ,

I have quoted this sentence from @Eddie. Do you agree with Eddie’s characterization?

If you do not, what can we point to where BioLogos has emphasized the DIVINELY INTENTIONAL aspect of Evolution?