For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's dependence on the randomness of Nature, I have decided to use the term 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he desires.
I find that this definition works well within the constraints of science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
On Nov 8, 8:50 am, Scanman <cecilcr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', > Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a > tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's > dependence on the randomness of Nature, I have decided to use the term > 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the > randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my > definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence > the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he > desires.
> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of > science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
Well, it could, as long as you do not consider the "God" part scientific.
> On Nov 8, 8:50 am, Scanman <cecilcr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', > > Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a > > tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
> > After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's > > dependence on the randomness of Nature, I have decided to use the term > > 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the > > randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my > > definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence > > the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he > > desires.
> > I find that this definition works well within the constraints of > > science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
> Well, it could, as long as you do not consider the "God" part > scientific.
> Boikat
Science is about what can be examined and explained within the confines of the natural laws of our universe...since by most definitions, God dwells, at least for the most part, outside of our universe, he then is 'super-natural'. I see absolutely no conflict between 'science' and a belief in God. There is obviously a chasm between the natural and the supernatural...a point where scientific study ends and faith begins.
For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's dependence on the randomness of Nature, I have decided to use the term 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he desires.
I find that this definition works well within the constraints of science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
Scanman wrote: > For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', > Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a > tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's > dependence on the randomness of Nature,
Sorry, what definition was that? I haven't seen such a definition.
> I have decided to use the term > 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the > randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my > definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence > the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he > desires.
> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of > science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
As long as god's actions have no detectable difference from the actions of inanimate nature, that hypothesis is untestable and therefore safe.
On Nov 8, 9:50 am, Scanman <cecilcr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', > Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a > tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's > dependence on the randomness of Nature, I have decided to use the term > 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the > randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my > definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence > the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he > desires.
> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of > science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
Or it could be that He controls the mutations and steps back for the selection (& drift) processes. As Boikat said, what sets a TE (or T- selectionist or T-mutationist etc.) apart from an ID/creationist is the admission that the God part is not a scientific conclusion.
In contrast, the slicker IDers know that they are pulling a bait-and switch. Even if they were right that "RM + NS" can't do "this or that," they know that we can't rule out a yet-unknown "naturalistic" process. And even if they are correct that a designer or Creator intervenes "somewhere at some time" they know that it could still be evolution as we know it.
Scanman wrote: > For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', > Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a > tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's > dependence on the randomness of Nature, I have decided to use the term > 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the > randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my > definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence > the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he > desires.
> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of > science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
IOW, God sent a meteorite plunging to Earth 65 million years ago, because He favored mammals over reptiles?
I guess you could consider that meteorite strike to be miraculous if you wish.
-- Steven L. Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Frank J wrote: > On Nov 8, 9:50 am, Scanman <cecilcr...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', >> Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a >> tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
>> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's >> dependence on the randomness of Nature, I have decided to use the term >> 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the >> randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my >> definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence >> the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he >> desires.
>> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of >> science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
> Or it could be that He controls the mutations and steps back for the > selection (& drift) processes.
That's what Ken Miller hinted at (but was smart enough not to commit to): That God resolves quantum indeterminacy in the direction He wishes it to go.
A God that works by collapsing wave functions to steer otherwise probabilistic phenomena can't be disproven, so you can believe it if you wish.
But it would take a heck of a lot of quantum steering to steer evolution literally atom by atom in literally every life form. Oh, well, God is all-powerful.
-- Steven L. Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 06:50:49 -0800 (PST), Scanman <cecilcr...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', >Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a >tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
>After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's >dependence on the randomness of Nature, I have decided to use the term >'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the >randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my >definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence >the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he >desires.
>I find that this definition works well within the constraints of >science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
It strikes me as a distinction without a difference, but if it allows you to still believe that God had something to do with evolution without rejecting science, fine with me.
> On Nov 8, 9:56 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 8:50 am, Scanman <cecilcr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', > > > Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a > > > tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
> > > After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's > > > dependence on the randomness of Nature, I have decided to use the term > > > 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the > > > randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my > > > definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence > > > the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he > > > desires.
> > > I find that this definition works well within the constraints of > > > science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
> > Well, it could, as long as you do not consider the "God" part > > scientific.
> > Boikat
> Science is about what can be examined and explained within the > confines of the natural laws of our universe...since by most > definitions, God dwells, at least for the most part, outside of our > universe, he then is 'super-natural'. I see absolutely no conflict > between 'science' and a belief in God. There is obviously a chasm > between the natural and the supernatural...a point where scientific > study ends and faith begins.-
No problem. As long as you do not hold your views as "scientific".
> Frank J wrote: > > On Nov 8, 9:50 am, Scanman <cecilcr...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', > >> Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a > >> tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
> >> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's > >> dependence on the randomness of Nature, I have decided to use the term > >> 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the > >> randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my > >> definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence > >> the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he > >> desires.
> >> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of > >> science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
> > Or it could be that He controls the mutations and steps back for the > > selection (& drift) processes.
> That's what Ken Miller hinted at (but was smart enough not to commit > to): That God resolves quantum indeterminacy in the direction He wishes > it to go.
> A God that works by collapsing wave functions to steer otherwise > probabilistic phenomena can't be disproven, so you can believe it if you > wish.
> But it would take a heck of a lot of quantum steering to steer evolution > literally atom by atom in literally every life form. Oh, well, God is > all-powerful.
I'm increasingly amazed at how anti-evolutionists of all "kinds" (IDer, OEC, YEC; professional, rank-and-file, etc.) almost never mention Miller these days. The most clueless of the rank-and- file probably never heard of him, but those who eat, drink and sleep evolution-denial must know of him, and probably read "Finding Darwin's God" and "Only a Theory." Yet just like "Expelled" they "expel" him because he is incovenient to their little fantasy.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:15:22 -0800, the following appeared in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net>:
>Scanman wrote: >> For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', >> Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a >> tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
>> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's >> dependence on the randomness of Nature,
>Sorry, what definition was that? I haven't seen such a definition.
I think he's referring to the randomness of the mutations on which selection acts.
>> I have decided to use the term >> 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the >> randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my >> definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence >> the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he >> desires.
>> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of >> science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
>As long as god's actions have no detectable difference from the actions >of inanimate nature, that hypothesis is untestable and therefore safe.
Sure, especially since there's no way to determine whether random mutations are actually random, so long as overall they follow a random distribution.
Crap, that even confuses me, but I think you know what I'm getting at. --
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
On Nov 8, 4:50 pm, Scanman <cecilcr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', > Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a > tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's > dependence on the randomness of Nature, I have decided to use the term > 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the > randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my > definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence > the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he > desires.
> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of > science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
Or you can think of God allowing some degree of freedom in how things work out, while setting the basic parameters and rules within which development occurs and perhaps interfering where a specific objective needs to be achieved. Makes things less boring. Especially if the development results in thinking creatures who want to know what is going on.
Scanman <cecilcr...@hotmail.com> wrote: > For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', > Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a > tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's > dependence on the randomness of Nature, I have decided to use the term > 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the > randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my > definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence > the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he > desires.
> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of > science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
This view of theistic intervention means that evolution must not have occurred the way God intended it to go, and so it demeans God's power and omniscience. I think that you had better read what Darwin wrote at the end of the Variation on this matter.
Bob Casanova wrote: > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:15:22 -0800, the following appeared > in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman > <jharsh...@pacbell.net>:
>> Scanman wrote: >>> For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', >>> Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a >>> tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
>>> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's >>> dependence on the randomness of Nature, >> Sorry, what definition was that? I haven't seen such a definition.
> I think he's referring to the randomness of the mutations on > which selection acts.
I don't recall random mutation being part of any definition of evolution. Nor do I recall selection being part of any definition of evolution. Can you?
>>> I have decided to use the term >>> 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the >>> randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my >>> definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence >>> the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he >>> desires.
>>> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of >>> science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power. >> As long as god's actions have no detectable difference from the actions >> of inanimate nature, that hypothesis is untestable and therefore safe.
> Sure, especially since there's no way to determine whether > random mutations are actually random, so long as overall > they follow a random distribution.
> Crap, that even confuses me, but I think you know what I'm > getting at.
If you're merely paraphrasing what I said, then yes.
> In article > <4b172ce0-fc77-44c7-b69c-1ad99a02d...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Scanman <cecilcr...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', > > Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a > > tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
> > After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's > > dependence on the randomness of Nature, I have decided to use the term > > 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the > > randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my > > definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence > > the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he > > desires.
> > I find that this definition works well within the constraints of > > science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
> This view of theistic intervention means that evolution must not have > occurred the way God intended it to go, and so it demeans God's power > and omniscience. I think that you had better read what Darwin wrote at > the end of the Variation on this matter.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I am new to this usenet format and did not realize that 'Reply to author' would only send to the authors email and not actually post here on this thread. Here is a repost of my reply for the thread...
This would be true if you take the 'wind it up and let it run' approach. Did man go the way God had intended him? Maybe so...maybe not. The 'incarnation' could be looked at as 'intervention'...was it demeaning? I will take your advice and look up what Darwin had to say...thanks.
> Bob Casanova wrote: > > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:15:22 -0800, the following appeared > > in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman > > <jharsh...@pacbell.net>:
> >> Scanman wrote: > >>> For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', > >>> Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a > >>> tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
> >>> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's > >>> dependence on the randomness of Nature, > >> Sorry, what definition was that? I haven't seen such a definition.
> > I think he's referring to the randomness of the mutations on > > which selection acts.
> I don't recall random mutation being part of any definition of > evolution. Nor do I recall selection being part of any definition of > evolution. Can you?
> >>> I have decided to use the term > >>> 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the > >>> randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my > >>> definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence > >>> the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he > >>> desires.
> >>> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of > >>> science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power. > >> As long as god's actions have no detectable difference from the actions > >> of inanimate nature, that hypothesis is untestable and therefore safe.
> > Sure, especially since there's no way to determine whether > > random mutations are actually random, so long as overall > > they follow a random distribution.
> > Crap, that even confuses me, but I think you know what I'm > > getting at.
> If you're merely paraphrasing what I said, then yes.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I screwed up and hit the 'Reply to author' button... I will paraphrase from memory what I think I wrote...
Evolution definition from talkorigin.org: "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."
What drives these heritable changes?... Random environmental variables in nature (unless you are talking about a controlled experiment).
> Scanman wrote: > > For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', > > Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a > > tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation.
> > After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's > > dependence on the randomness of Nature, I have decided to use the term > > 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the > > randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my > > definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence > > the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he > > desires.
> > I find that this definition works well within the constraints of > > science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power.
> IOW, God sent a meteorite plunging to Earth 65 million years ago, > because He favored mammals over reptiles?
> I guess you could consider that meteorite strike to be miraculous if you > wish.
> -- > Steven L. > Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net > Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
You make a good point,,,kind of reminds me of the sci-fi book 'West of Eden' (Harry Harrison)...what if the meteor did not hit and reptiles became the dominant sentient species...excellant read. I do not pretend to know the mind of God in this matter...the 'butterfly effect' or the meteor effect...choose your poison. I am sure that God was merely working toward a creature capable of sentient thought...whether reptile or mammal, the image of God is spiritual not physical.
Scanman wrote: > On Nov 8, 7:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> Bob Casanova wrote: >>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:15:22 -0800, the following appeared >>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman >>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net>: >>>> Scanman wrote: >>>>> For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', >>>>> Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a >>>>> tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation. >>>>> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's >>>>> dependence on the randomness of Nature, >>>> Sorry, what definition was that? I haven't seen such a definition. >>> I think he's referring to the randomness of the mutations on >>> which selection acts. >> I don't recall random mutation being part of any definition of >> evolution. Nor do I recall selection being part of any definition of >> evolution. Can you?
>>>>> I have decided to use the term >>>>> 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the >>>>> randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my >>>>> definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence >>>>> the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he >>>>> desires. >>>>> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of >>>>> science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power. >>>> As long as god's actions have no detectable difference from the actions >>>> of inanimate nature, that hypothesis is untestable and therefore safe. >>> Sure, especially since there's no way to determine whether >>> random mutations are actually random, so long as overall >>> they follow a random distribution. >>> Crap, that even confuses me, but I think you know what I'm >>> getting at. >> If you're merely paraphrasing what I said, then yes. > Evolution definition from talkorigin.org: > "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a > population spread over many generations."
Notice that this says nothing about randomness, selection, or even mutation.
> What drives these heritable changes?... Random environmental variables > in nature (unless you are talking about a controlled experiment).
That's your personal importation, not part of the definition.
> Scanman wrote: > > On Nov 8, 7:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> Bob Casanova wrote: > >>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:15:22 -0800, the following appeared > >>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman > >>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net>: > >>>> Scanman wrote: > >>>>> For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', > >>>>> Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a > >>>>> tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation. > >>>>> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's > >>>>> dependence on the randomness of Nature, > >>>> Sorry, what definition was that? I haven't seen such a definition. > >>> I think he's referring to the randomness of the mutations on > >>> which selection acts. > >> I don't recall random mutation being part of any definition of > >> evolution. Nor do I recall selection being part of any definition of > >> evolution. Can you?
> >>>>> I have decided to use the term > >>>>> 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the > >>>>> randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my > >>>>> definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence > >>>>> the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he > >>>>> desires. > >>>>> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of > >>>>> science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power. > >>>> As long as god's actions have no detectable difference from the actions > >>>> of inanimate nature, that hypothesis is untestable and therefore safe. > >>> Sure, especially since there's no way to determine whether > >>> random mutations are actually random, so long as overall > >>> they follow a random distribution. > >>> Crap, that even confuses me, but I think you know what I'm > >>> getting at. > >> If you're merely paraphrasing what I said, then yes. > > Evolution definition from talkorigin.org: > > "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a > > population spread over many generations."
> Notice that this says nothing about randomness, selection, or even mutation.
> > What drives these heritable changes?... Random environmental variables > > in nature (unless you are talking about a controlled experiment).
> That's your personal importation, not part of the definition.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
What brings about 'heritable changes'? Leaving God out of the picture leaves Nature's influence to randomness. Natural 'Selection' brings about change that suits environmental variables. Mutation is by definition 'change'.
> On Nov 8, 9:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> Scanman wrote: >> > On Nov 8, 7:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> Bob Casanova wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:15:22 -0800, the following appeared >> >>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman >> >>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net>: >> >>>> Scanman wrote: >> >>>>> For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', >> >>>>> Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a >> >>>>> tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation. >> >>>>> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's >> >>>>> dependence on the randomness of Nature, >> >>>> Sorry, what definition was that? I haven't seen such a definition. >> >>> I think he's referring to the randomness of the mutations on >> >>> which selection acts. >> >> I don't recall random mutation being part of any definition of >> >> evolution. Nor do I recall selection being part of any definition of >> >> evolution. Can you?
>> >>>>> I have decided to use the term >> >>>>> 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the >> >>>>> randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my >> >>>>> definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence >> >>>>> the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he >> >>>>> desires. >> >>>>> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of >> >>>>> science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power. >> >>>> As long as god's actions have no detectable difference from the actions >> >>>> of inanimate nature, that hypothesis is untestable and therefore safe. >> >>> Sure, especially since there's no way to determine whether >> >>> random mutations are actually random, so long as overall >> >>> they follow a random distribution. >> >>> Crap, that even confuses me, but I think you know what I'm >> >>> getting at. >> >> If you're merely paraphrasing what I said, then yes. >> > Evolution definition from talkorigin.org: >> > "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a >> > population spread over many generations."
>> Notice that this says nothing about randomness, selection, or even mutation.
>> > What drives these heritable changes?... Random environmental variables >> > in nature (unless you are talking about a controlled experiment).
>> That's your personal importation, not part of the definition.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text - > What brings about 'heritable changes'?
Changes to germline cells may be passed on to the next generation, thus these changes are heritable. Changes to somatic cells are not passed along and so are not heritable.
> Leaving God out of the picture leaves Nature's influence to > randomness.
"Randomness" has multiple meanings and it would be helpful to note which one you're using. Mutations are not random in the sense that they are drawn from a uniform distribution, nor are necessarily random in the sense that they are unpredictable. The biological sense of the word in this context is that mutations are independent of the environment. Even if it would be really handy to aquire a mutation to be bigger or stronger, there's no way to communicate that back to the genes. "Undirected" would probably be a better term, but since biologists know what they mean by "random", it's best to learn their definition when discussing biology.
> Natural 'Selection' brings about change that suits environmental > variables.
I think "selects the changes" is more accurate than "brings about change".
> Mutation is by definition 'change'.
In this context, by definition, it is: "A heritable change in the genetic material of an organism that does not involve reciprocal combination." (Barton, _Evolution_, 2007).
> On 2009-11-09, Scanman <cecilcr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 9:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> Scanman wrote: > >> > On Nov 8, 7:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> >> Bob Casanova wrote: > >> >>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:15:22 -0800, the following appeared > >> >>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman > >> >>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net>: > >> >>>> Scanman wrote: > >> >>>>> For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', > >> >>>>> Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a > >> >>>>> tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation. > >> >>>>> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's > >> >>>>> dependence on the randomness of Nature, > >> >>>> Sorry, what definition was that? I haven't seen such a definition. > >> >>> I think he's referring to the randomness of the mutations on > >> >>> which selection acts. > >> >> I don't recall random mutation being part of any definition of > >> >> evolution. Nor do I recall selection being part of any definition of > >> >> evolution. Can you?
> >> >>>>> I have decided to use the term > >> >>>>> 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the > >> >>>>> randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my > >> >>>>> definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence > >> >>>>> the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he > >> >>>>> desires. > >> >>>>> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of > >> >>>>> science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power. > >> >>>> As long as god's actions have no detectable difference from the actions > >> >>>> of inanimate nature, that hypothesis is untestable and therefore safe. > >> >>> Sure, especially since there's no way to determine whether > >> >>> random mutations are actually random, so long as overall > >> >>> they follow a random distribution. > >> >>> Crap, that even confuses me, but I think you know what I'm > >> >>> getting at. > >> >> If you're merely paraphrasing what I said, then yes. > >> > Evolution definition from talkorigin.org: > >> > "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a > >> > population spread over many generations."
> >> Notice that this says nothing about randomness, selection, or even mutation.
> >> > What drives these heritable changes?... Random environmental variables > >> > in nature (unless you are talking about a controlled experiment).
> >> That's your personal importation, not part of the definition.- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text - > > What brings about 'heritable changes'?
> Changes to germline cells may be passed on to the next generation, thus these > changes are heritable. Changes to somatic cells are not passed along and so > are not heritable.
> > Leaving God out of the picture leaves Nature's influence to > > randomness.
> "Randomness" has multiple meanings and it would be helpful to note which one > you're using. Mutations are not random in the sense that they are drawn from > a uniform distribution, nor are necessarily random in the sense that they are > unpredictable. The biological sense of the word in this context is that > mutations are independent of the environment. Even if it would be really > handy to aquire a mutation to be bigger or stronger, there's no way to > communicate that back to the genes. "Undirected" would probably be a better > term, but since biologists know what they mean by "random", it's best to learn > their definition when discussing biology.
> > Natural 'Selection' brings about change that suits environmental > > variables.
> I think "selects the changes" is more accurate than "brings about change".
> > Mutation is by definition 'change'.
> In this context, by definition, it is: "A heritable change in the genetic > material of an organism that does not involve reciprocal combination." > (Barton, _Evolution_, 2007).- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
No conflict here...'undirected' is definately a better fit...thanks for the clarification.
Scanman wrote: > On Nov 8, 9:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> Scanman wrote: >>> On Nov 8, 7:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >>>> Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:15:22 -0800, the following appeared >>>>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman >>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net>: >>>>>> Scanman wrote: >>>>>>> For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', >>>>>>> Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a >>>>>>> tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation. >>>>>>> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's >>>>>>> dependence on the randomness of Nature, >>>>>> Sorry, what definition was that? I haven't seen such a definition. >>>>> I think he's referring to the randomness of the mutations on >>>>> which selection acts. >>>> I don't recall random mutation being part of any definition of >>>> evolution. Nor do I recall selection being part of any definition of >>>> evolution. Can you? >>>>>>> I have decided to use the term >>>>>>> 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the >>>>>>> randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my >>>>>>> definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence >>>>>>> the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he >>>>>>> desires. >>>>>>> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of >>>>>>> science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power. >>>>>> As long as god's actions have no detectable difference from the actions >>>>>> of inanimate nature, that hypothesis is untestable and therefore safe. >>>>> Sure, especially since there's no way to determine whether >>>>> random mutations are actually random, so long as overall >>>>> they follow a random distribution. >>>>> Crap, that even confuses me, but I think you know what I'm >>>>> getting at. >>>> If you're merely paraphrasing what I said, then yes. >>> Evolution definition from talkorigin.org: >>> "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a >>> population spread over many generations." >> Notice that this says nothing about randomness, selection, or even mutation.
>>> What drives these heritable changes?... Random environmental variables >>> in nature (unless you are talking about a controlled experiment). >> That's your personal importation, not part of the definition. > What brings about 'heritable changes'?
Mutation. But the definition of evolution doesn't say that.
> Leaving God out of the picture leaves Nature's influence to > randomness.
No it doesn't. There are other possible regularities. And at any rate no definition of evolution requires leaving god out of the picture.
> Natural 'Selection' brings about change that suits environmental > variables. > Mutation is by definition 'change'.
What relevance do these statements have, to each other or to your point?
> Scanman wrote: > > On Nov 8, 9:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> Scanman wrote: > >>> On Nov 8, 7:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >>>> Bob Casanova wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:15:22 -0800, the following appeared > >>>>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman > >>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net>: > >>>>>> Scanman wrote: > >>>>>>> For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', > >>>>>>> Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a > >>>>>>> tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation. > >>>>>>> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's > >>>>>>> dependence on the randomness of Nature, > >>>>>> Sorry, what definition was that? I haven't seen such a definition. > >>>>> I think he's referring to the randomness of the mutations on > >>>>> which selection acts. > >>>> I don't recall random mutation being part of any definition of > >>>> evolution. Nor do I recall selection being part of any definition of > >>>> evolution. Can you? > >>>>>>> I have decided to use the term > >>>>>>> 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the > >>>>>>> randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my > >>>>>>> definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence > >>>>>>> the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he > >>>>>>> desires. > >>>>>>> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of > >>>>>>> science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power. > >>>>>> As long as god's actions have no detectable difference from the actions > >>>>>> of inanimate nature, that hypothesis is untestable and therefore safe. > >>>>> Sure, especially since there's no way to determine whether > >>>>> random mutations are actually random, so long as overall > >>>>> they follow a random distribution. > >>>>> Crap, that even confuses me, but I think you know what I'm > >>>>> getting at. > >>>> If you're merely paraphrasing what I said, then yes. > >>> Evolution definition from talkorigin.org: > >>> "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a > >>> population spread over many generations." > >> Notice that this says nothing about randomness, selection, or even mutation.
> >>> What drives these heritable changes?... Random environmental variables > >>> in nature (unless you are talking about a controlled experiment). > >> That's your personal importation, not part of the definition. > > What brings about 'heritable changes'?
> Mutation. But the definition of evolution doesn't say that.
> > Leaving God out of the picture leaves Nature's influence to > > randomness.
> No it doesn't. There are other possible regularities. And at any rate no > definition of evolution requires leaving god out of the picture.
> > Natural 'Selection' brings about change that suits environmental > > variables. > > Mutation is by definition 'change'.
> What relevance do these statements have, to each other or to your point?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
An earlier commentor put it better..'undirected' instead of randomness. Nature is undirected (in an atheistic world). Naturalistic Evolution leaves God out of the equation. Maybe 'Theistic Evolution' is still an adequate term. I assumed that Evolution, by itself, implied Naturalism.
> On Nov 9, 12:06 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> Scanman wrote: >> > On Nov 8, 9:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >> Scanman wrote: >> >>> On Nov 8, 7:08 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >>>> Bob Casanova wrote: >> >>>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:15:22 -0800, the following appeared >> >>>>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman >> >>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net>: >> >>>>>> Scanman wrote: >> >>>>>>> For a while I have been calling myself a 'Theistic Evolutionist', >> >>>>>>> Believeing that God employs the basic principles of evolution as a >> >>>>>>> tool for bringing about the changes he desires in his creation. >> >>>>>>> After revisiting the very definition of 'evolution' and it's >> >>>>>>> dependence on the randomness of Nature, >> >>>>>> Sorry, what definition was that? I haven't seen such a definition. >> >>>>> I think he's referring to the randomness of the mutations on >> >>>>> which selection acts. >> >>>> I don't recall random mutation being part of any definition of >> >>>> evolution. Nor do I recall selection being part of any definition of >> >>>> evolution. Can you? >> >>>>>>> I have decided to use the term >> >>>>>>> 'Theistic Selectionist'. 'Theistic Selection' turns over the >> >>>>>>> randomness of Nature to the purpose and desires of God. By my >> >>>>>>> definition, God controls the environmental variables that influence >> >>>>>>> the genetic selection process, bringing about the changes that he >> >>>>>>> desires. >> >>>>>>> I find that this definition works well within the constraints of >> >>>>>>> science and that of belief in an ultimate higher power. >> >>>>>> As long as god's actions have no detectable difference from the actions >> >>>>>> of inanimate nature, that hypothesis is untestable and therefore safe. >> >>>>> Sure, especially since there's no way to determine whether >> >>>>> random mutations are actually random, so long as overall >> >>>>> they follow a random distribution. >> >>>>> Crap, that even confuses me, but I think you know what I'm >> >>>>> getting at. >> >>>> If you're merely paraphrasing what I said, then yes. >> >>> Evolution definition from talkorigin.org: >> >>> "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a >> >>> population spread over many generations." >> >> Notice that this says nothing about randomness, selection, or even mutation.
>> >>> What drives these heritable changes?... Random environmental variables >> >>> in nature (unless you are talking about a controlled experiment). >> >> That's your personal importation, not part of the definition. >> > What brings about 'heritable changes'?
>> Mutation. But the definition of evolution doesn't say that.
>> > Leaving God out of the picture leaves Nature's influence to >> > randomness.
>> No it doesn't. There are other possible regularities. And at any rate no >> definition of evolution requires leaving god out of the picture.
>> > Natural 'Selection' brings about change that suits environmental >> > variables. >> > Mutation is by definition 'change'.
>> What relevance do these statements have, to each other or to your point?- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> An earlier commentor put it better..'undirected' instead of > randomness. Nature is undirected (in an atheistic world).
Not quite, but closer.
Nature is undirected in that there is no biological mechanism by which the environment may influence particular mutations. This fact holds true whether or not gods exist. If gods exist, they may have their own mechanisms, but as these mechanisms are not biological, biology is not concerned with describing them.
> Naturalistic Evolution leaves God out of the equation.
Yes.
> Maybe 'Theistic Evolution' is still an adequate term.
Theistic evolution also leaves god out of the equations. I've worked (briefly) with these equations and have the bumps on my head to prove it. Adding "theistic" simply tells you something about how that individual thinks non-biological questions can be answered.
> I assumed that Evolution, by itself, implied Naturalism.
Methodological naturalism is implied and required, which means we can't ascribe observations to miracles. Some atheists think that ontological naturalism is strong hinted at, but this is a philosophical argument, not a biological one.
|
