- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,574
- 11,471
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
When it comes to a scientific discussion the scientists are going to fare best. If one wants a philosophical discussion one goes to philosophers. How life evolved is well understood and scientists keep learning more and more every day.
Do you have a particular objection to evolution aside from the terminology that is used?
But there is selection in nature, as my last post showed. You just do not like the terminology.Then, I'll elucidate: I think that any scientist who meddles inordinately with genetics is trying to do something Un-Natural. There is NO selection in nature and to attempt selection is to do so artificially and to be stepping into God's domain. It's one thing to observe the genome of whichever organism; but it's another thing altogether to screw around with it.
Is that clearer?
Because you keep claiming that there is no selection in nature.No. I'm an Evolutionist. Why would I object to it?
That is taking forever to load. A personal objection against terminology is a rather futile argument.See? You're still no getting what I'm saying because you're not paying attention to the contexts of what I'm building on.
So, I'll see your items and deliver one of my own. This is all I'm attempting to get at. If you want to make more of it, be my guest:
Natural Selection: the trouble with terminology Part I
Survival of the fittest: the trouble with terminology Part II
'Natural selection' derives from the metaphorical anthropomorphism of 'Mother Nature' (the classical goddess), so it seems quite appropriate to me.I wouldn't call that 'selection,' and I think Darwin's attempt to analogize as he did, after borrowing concepts from animal husbandry and the like, wasn't quite 'meet' for was actually defaults among competing organisms in nature. The survival of an organism--or a population as is usually the case--isn't hand picked by nature. It's a default to survival among those populations that are most well suited to their environment.
Nature doesn't select.
Seriously, pretty much every introductory text on biological evolution will mention it.Also, @FrumiousBandersnatch and @Subduction Zone, if you think I'm wrong on something, rather than simply and flatly telling me I'm wrong and silently sitting back and watching what you think will be a tail-spin out of control on my part, plunging down in error ...
...why don't you guys do the virtuous thing and provide me with pin-pointed sources wherein you think I'll find the 'correct' view and/or info. Besides, I'd love to add whatever sources you guys refer to my existing academic bibs.
See? You're still no getting what I'm saying because you're not paying attention to the contexts of what I'm building on.
So, I'll see your items and deliver one of my own. This is all I'm attempting to get at. If you want to make more of it, be my guest:
Natural Selection: the trouble with terminology Part I
Survival of the fittest: the trouble with terminology Part II
I am always amazed at the depth of thought the founders of science put into the smallest details. They obviously thought it important, and given we stand on their shoulders, I don't think it's appropriate to be flippant about it. I often feel like dismissing those small details means one has missed some of the deeper truths.
I've told the story too often, but when I learned d'Alembert's principle in college my reaction was: How is this different from Newton ... and Lagrange, and Hamilton, and Green, and ... ?
Many years later I had the, "Ah. Now I feel stupid." moment.
I didn't think I was being flippant. I merely posted an article back to @Subduction Zone ... and I get in return what I count as 'non-responsive responses.'
It sounds to me that unless I throw away whatever crazy ideas I have in my head and get in line, then I'll just get set to the side.
okay.
Let me burn my diplomas too while I'm at it. I'm pretty sure they're worthless at this point. Rubbish maybe, even. Not that that notion isn't maybe a good thing in the end, I suppose ...
I didn't mean you were flippant ... at least not about terminology. It was more a summary of my anecdotal observations of lay people and working science/tech people over the years.
See? You're still no getting what I'm saying because you're not paying attention to the contexts of what I'm building on.
So, I'll see your items and deliver one of my own. This is all I'm attempting to get at. If you want to make more of it, be my guest:
Natural Selection: the trouble with terminology Part I
Survival of the fittest: the trouble with terminology Part II
And this applies to me how?
My point in even being here on this thread is to try to open up the OP topic a little---from any and all angles possible, as time permits. But call me skiddish, and if folks sense some kind of hesitant respect for science on my part, that may be because when it comes to "progress" in science, I tend to be more on the Bill Joy (and others like him) side of things than on the Ray Kurzweil side of things. Catch my drift?
Did you post those links to show that some people have difficulty in relating the terminology used in evolution? I have only seen people deride 'survival of the fittest' when they don't understand the context in which it was used and think that fitness is associated with health and strength. Otherwise, it's an arcane discussion of teminology that is more an interest to etymologists.
Likewise 'natural selection'. We know what it means. If someone misunderstands the terminology then explain it to them.
Yes, I posted those links to show where the problem started and from whence it has carried. That's it.
But as a person who is more attuned to the social sciences and philosophy, I'm going to come at the act of evaluating definitions and theoretical concepts in science a little differently than the typical atheists do who show up here on CF, regardless of the fact that I'm also an evolutionist.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to reading Barbara J. King's book, "Evolving God."
Thanks!
The only problem with the terminology is with those who don't understand evolution and misinterpret those terms. It's not a problem for evolution. And in passing, I might note that using the word 'evolutionist' to describe oneself rings all sorts of alarm bells. It's like saying 'gravitationalist'.
Notice, too, that in this, I didn't mention Michael Behe or Dembski.
No, I simply included these terms because that is how others have made categories for supposed positions among Creationists. I did not say I was a Theistic Evolutionist, and I did not say that I was an Evolutionary Theist, which is why I couched these categories as questions.A theistic evolutionist? Like a theistic astronomer? Or a theistic chemist? If you're a Christian, the descriptor 'theistic' is redundant. Just as redundant as it would be if I said I'm an 'atheistic evolutionist'. The process doesn't require a belief in, or a rejection of, God. So you've included it for a reason.
I can't help if you surmise there's some 'secret' rhetorical flourish that I've covertly added here that somehow belies that the current Theory of Evolution is other or less than what the later proponents of the Modern Synthesis or Neo-Darwinists would tell us.I see it as code for 'there are some aspects of the process that could not have and did not happen naturally'.
I love to torture little helpless theories, of all kinds.
I've never heard evolution being called a 'little helpless theory' before. Perhaps you should have chosen an easier target. Creationism perhaps. Hours of innocent fun to be had there.
I've never heard evolution being called a 'little helpless theory' before. Perhaps you should have chosen an easier target. Creationism perhaps. Hours of innocent fun to be had there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?