Justus For All

“However, when people speak of evolution they are not just talking about the theory of natural selection and the methods of speciation. They are also saying that only ‘random unplanned mutations’ are responsible for this.”

Dave, this is true. The way that I have seen this expressed is in two variants of the evolution theory.

Personally, I am a “gradualist”. Evolution is a gradual process. While “random unplanned mutations” are a part of the process it does not result in a rabbit bearing a hare, or an elephant bearing a hyrax. My interest is in the influence that environmental changes might have on evolution; adaptation to environmental changes, and adaptation to exploit new opportunities.

More interesting though will be the impetus that Benedict’s action might give to the creationists and their campaign to change the fundamental nature of science and learning.

I would say that evolution can be “guided”, in the sense that scientists do it all the time in the lab, by manipulating the environment in which an organism and its descendants must survive. The problem with “Intelligent Design” is that it claims that the “guidance” is supernatural in nature. To be clear, its purveyors steadfastly avoid the concept directly, but they’re quick to disregard anything that isn’t supernatural (environment manipulation by scientists, alient genetic engineering, etc.).

To put it another way:

Evolution: The accumulation, in such a way that descendants are improved relative to their environment, of random genetic changes.

ID: The accumulation, in such a way that descendants are improved relative to their environment, of intentional changes made in a way current science cannot explain, by someone its proponents often avoid naming.

I’ll go with #1.

“The problem with “Intelligent Design” is that it claims that the “guidance” is supernatural in nature. o be clear, its purveyors steadfastly avoid the concept directly, but they’re quick to disregard anything that isn’t supernatural (environment manipulation by scientists, alient genetic engineering, etc.).”

I don’t believe that is true. Some Intelligent Design supporters of course are convinced that the Intelligent Designer that ID postulates is ‘God’ but I am not sure that all of them are. I have never seen any scientific supporter of ID say, for example, it couldn’t be aliens. Obviously if you believe in a God, than he fits the bill quite nicely.

That all is kind of getting off my point though. I don’t think that science has any good evidence to conclude that the observed changes and mutations are all, and must necessary be, random.

That is not to say that I think science has any good reason to conclude the opposite either. The the observed changes cannot be random.

Either conclusion would be very difficult to make.

Now, in truth I don’t think that science has ever said we have proven that all the observed genetic changes are a result of random chance. The closest to that that science has gotten is sayinb we believe that random chance could account for all observed behaviors. The two are not the same at all.

For example, if I see a pair of dice come up snake eyes, I can quite confidently state that random chance could account for that observed result. Based upon that evidence though, it would be wrong for me to say, therefore the dice are not weighted. At this point, I don’t know.

Any theory of evolution that demands (as a matter of faith) that only randomness be involved, a that therefore their is no active God will inevitably be in conflict with religious people. They will also, in my opinion, be practicing bad science.

That doesn’t of course mean that one has to agree with ID. ID of course claims that non-random changes are detectable and can by analyzed. So far, I haven’t seen any evidence that convinces me of this.

I think it is very possible to hold a theory of evolution that matches completely with the best science we have and still has room for an active God in the Universe (it doesn’t prove that their is an active God, only allows the possibility.) This is done simply by acknowledging that we have no way to know if any given mutation is a result of random or other (yes, including supernatural) forces.

While technically logical, that argument isn’t particularly rational. Every observed and measured mutation since we recognized them has been random, and almost always harmful. What you are proposing then, as a logical support of ID as a philosophy, is that we can rationally accept that non-random, positive mutations occur only when scientists aren’t looking. While certainly a logical possibility, it is also logically identical to the proposition that Satan put the fossils there to tempt us. Either argument plays on the fact that we must deduce past events from the evidence left behind, but it is impossible to prove that an extraordinary external actor didn’t simply arrange evidence to deceive us.

If we cannot assume that natural laws function the same when we measure them as when we do not, then there really isn’t much point to science.

Dave, my sister practises genetic modification and practical evolution on a continuing basis.

It is her way of improving her Angus herd through unnatural selection including artificial insemination.

I don’t think it will see the emergence of a new species however.

Dave Miller,

Are you stating that belief in science and belief in a God that acts upon the world is absolutely incompatible?

I am not saying science should declare that their is a God. I am not saying that science should base theories on a presumed existence of God. All I am saying is that science shouldn’t say in knows things that it doesn’t know.

Science doesn’t know that there is no God. We can certainly agree that Science hasn’t found any evidence or proof of a god, but it has no means, at least now (and perhaps never) of proving that God doesn’t exist.

I also didn’t propose that science support ID. And I certainly didn’t say that God only acts when we arn’t looking. What I said was we can’t tell the difference. For every mutation that has occured, it is possible that it was random and possible that it was caused. We can’t tell. I certainly advocate that science proceed on the assumption that those mutations are random. I don’t however advocate that they pretend that that assumption is fact.

It is an assumption that is necessary for the study of science, I certainly don’t deny that. As a matter of both honesty and practicality though, acknowledging that assumption for what it is seems useful to me.

I am stating that belief in an “external” directive intelligence is inconsistent with the practice of science. And this is pretty much what you said in your reply as well.

You concluded, “As a matter of both honesty and practicality though, acknowledging that assumption for what it is seems useful to me.”, and I agree in principal. But the fact is, since the unprovable by definition has no measureable impact, there are only so many times you can acknowledge the possilibity of its existance before you just start sounding silly.

What I claimed in my original post was that some people, on both sides of the debate, take evolution and god as mutually exclusive. If evolution is true then their cannot be a God. If God is true then their cannot be evolution.

I don’t agree with that view.

I don’t think many scientists advance the belief that the theory of evolution disproves the existence of God. However, there are atheists who at the very least imply that to be so. To me, those people exhibit dogmatic behavior that is not very different from the most fundamentalist young earth Christians.

I certainly don’t think that scientists should preface every paper dealing with evolution with a statement that ‘this doesn’t prove the non-existence of God’ nor do I think it should be in science books.

What I do think is that people who believe in evolution should not claim to religious people that science has proven God doesn’t exist or try to force people to choose with one or the other. I think it is dishonest. On the practicle side, I am not sure that if that choice is forced, the majority will choose evolution. That seems more likely to harm science than anything else.

I am not sure what you mean though that belief in an external directive intelligence is inconsistent with the practice of science. Many scientists, some with quite impressive accomplishments, believe exactly that.

Not a single effective, god-believing scientist looks at a piece of evidence and assumes first that it was an act of his god. If you practice science, you leave your beliefs at home. Science is about what can be proven through consistency and repeatability, and even the most devout of believers will admit that god cannot be proven to exist. And the most steadfast of atheists will admit that if you define god narrowly enough, its existance cannot be disproven.

Look, to return to your original premise, if evolution is “true”, then either god doesn’t exist, or it behaves so much like random chance, that it makes no difference. To assert otherwise is simply falling back on the “Satan put the fossils there to tempt mankind” argument.