No, I mean randomly distributed reproductive variation to which mutations contribute but are not the sole cause.
Ok, but when you say randomly distributed variation this is still an unguided process that will throw up a number of possibilities good and bad. I was referring to what is claimed as the main source of Neo Darwinism in what is called random mutations.
Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Mutations are random
I am talking about the difference between those random variations and more directed and self-organising change of which some do not even involve changes in genes. It is these sources of variation that may come from mechanisms such as the development process, epigenetics and plasticity that may point to inbuilt abilities all living things have to help them adapt to environments.
If it is the standard mutation that evolution often speaks of then they are random because they do not have any direction or know what a living thing needs to adapt ahead of time. As opposed to some of the EES processes that direct change by providing well-suited variations by providing certain outcomes over others or by allowing living things to influence change themselves.
Why "blind?" What is there for it to see?
Natural selection is said to be blind as far as seeing ahead to what may be needed to help a creature adapt to its environment. So long as there is some survival advantage it does not matter whether the variation is good, bad or ugly. As many have said there is no purpose or goal for Natural selection.
natural selection, and evolution in general, are material processes, blind, mindless, and purposeless.
Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless
"Is claimed to be?" What a cop out. The theory of evolution, like all other scientific theories, is consistent with both theism and atheism. It does not require disbelief in God.
Then why do the person who made the theory in Charles Darwin and most of the pioneers and prominent supporters state that the theory does away with Gods creation or the more common statement “Design without a Designer”.
Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer
Darwin's greatest contribution to science is that he completed the Copernican Revolution by drawing out for biology the notion of nature as a system of matter in motion governed by natural laws. With Darwin's discovery of natural selection, the origin and adaptations of organisms were brought into the realm of science. The adaptive features of organisms could now be explained, like the phenomena of the inanimate world, as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer.
Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer
It may be that there are theistic evolutionists who believe such. I do not, and think it entirely unnecessary.
But if your view of evolution does not include supernatural interventions and supports Neo-Darwinism then this contradicts a creator God i.e. as it has been promoted. “Design without a designer”. It is the same for theories about how the universe came about. Scientific theories like Inflation theory try to explain the universe coming from a naturalistic process that created itself without the need for a God. Unless you disagree with the conclusions and view the observations as being the result of other processes, hence ID interpret the same evidence being the result of design processes.
What I meant was that you need to come to a better theological understanding of causality. You still seem to think that identifying a natural cause for a phenomenon denies a divine cause and that what you see as a blind and random process poses a barrier to divine providence,.
I suppose you could rationalize those ideas into your belief but then you would have to rely on faith to support those ideas being caused by a naturalistic process that others say does away with the need for God. I cannot reconcile Neo-Darwinism as a natural process that relates to a creator God because of the very definition the creators of the theory give to it i.e. Design without a designer.
That is why I say theistic evolutionist would have to interpret the evidence differently or just have faith that God used evolution as a way to help living things survive on earth. Its all a matter of how one understands how evolution works. My view is there are natural processes that do fit in with a creator God better such as some of the processes within the EES. Equipping life with mechanisms and abilities that help them adapt is more of a logical explanation.
God gave us the ability to understand his creation through science and not just entirely through faith. That’s why I say that I would think people who support theistic evolution have to rely on faith as to exactly how God uses evolution because the scientific explanation seeks to exclude a creator God.
"That God may have used to help living things adapt to changing conditions?" Sounds like you are trying to have a bet both ways like you imagine theistic evolutionists are trying to do and sneer at them for. But EES is not going to provide you with a window of opportunity for that "help." It is just as thoroughly naturalistic as the rest of the theory of evolution.
Not really, like I said I think there have to be natural processes that point to Gods creation if you want to use the science. Those will be the mechanisms and processes that life has been equipped with from the beginning. Some of the processes within the EES point to this such as development processes that are biased towards producing certain forms rather than any possibility that is suggested by the Standard evolution theory. This points more to design.
It’s not a case of having a bet each way but finding the natural processes and laws that do point to design rather than just having faith that God must have done it through the science. That’s why I say some theistic evolutionists just believe evolution was used by God and do not really understand what the theory represents according to the science.
Not all scientific theories are correct and still need to be understood and tested. But it is more important for believers in God to scrutinize the science as far as how it fits in with their beliefs rather than just believing so because of the science. I believe we can get a better understanding of Gods creation by understanding the science behind it.