The Definition for the Theory of Evolution

The theory of how evolution happens is by natural processes, mainly natural selection as defined by the biological synthesis of the 1930s and 40s. Although the geneticists, as led by Ronald Fisher, are judged to have won the debate, that is, their "change in gene frequencies" is widely held as the correct scientific definition of evolution, the naturalists, as represented by Ernst Mayr and Huxley and Dobzhansky reject reductionistic "gene frequencies" definition. The naturalists favor the traditional understanding; phenotypes, populations, inheritance, individual organisms as the principle object of selection inferred from observations. Darwin refurbished.But the only definition of Theory of Evolution that mattters is: an interpretation of scientific data attempting to explain how nature may have produced itself without any assistance from a Divine Creator (Phillip Johnson).Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Since you are a Darwinist we are not surprised, what is your point?Ray

Something that a person who is ignorant of science history and grounded in preconceptions and subjectivity, would say. Why would any evolutionist protest the above definition of ToE? By implication said protest is saying that God is not excluded as an explanation in ToE. Where is God IN the ToE? Of course the question is rhetorical. It appears Adequate is confused or just plain angry at any IDist since his point makes no sense. Johnson's definition makes perfect sense as it is axiomatically true: ToE seeks to explain data apart from any Divine Being.As for Adequate's insults concerning one of his rivals: I would imagine that Johnson is not the least bit offended in being called a liar and loon from someone who thinks apes morphed into men over millions of years or that design indicates mindless forces instead of invisible Designer. I, for one, would not be either.Ray

Which was my point concerning your original point about Johnson. Since you are an evolutionist anything you say (negatively) about Johnson (an IDist) is undermined by your motive.Ray

First, I don't like ("explanatory" and "explain") in the same phrase and sentence, this does not work well. But with this aside, I see no real difference between you and Johnson (or my slight alteration of Johnson since I did not put his definition in quote marks). So I guess we then agree? If so, will you answer some of our critics who disagree in this thread? Yes it is. ToE interprets data and evidence under Naturalism and Materialism presuppositions. Creationism is an interpretation of the same data and evidence made under the presuppositions of Supernaturalism or Biblicalism. The whole point of ToE is that Creator not needed to explain nature. This point seems to depart from the point we agreed on above. Where is God IN ToE?Ray

Since your last comment admits that your post was off-topic and thus a derailment, if I were a Moderator I would give you a warning.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

I agree that most evolutionists claim to be Christians. The definition at issue is a self-evident objective description of ToE. Some TEists accept that God is not an explanation after First Cause. Other TEists subjectively insert Him contrary to all claims of ToE.The objective fact of the matter is that ToE has no place for God IN its theory. TEists can subjectively make a place for Him but no scholar, starting with Darwin and ending with Dawkins, has ever said that evolution is guided or that design actually exists. The real issue is why are persons who claim to be, or think of themselves as Christians, accept a theory that specifically excludes the Father of their alleged Savior from having any role in producing reality?Again, the point is that the Johnson definition is objective corresponding to what every evolutionary scholar has said and the self-evident goal of ToE: explain reality apart from Divine power. TEists can invent their own definition of ToE but it is subjective since the whole point of ToE is to say that the Creationists and Paley are wrong. He doesn't.We explain TEists as I did above or, as I now will say: they are confused since the whole point of evolutionary theory is the exact opposite of Creationism.Darwin specifically told Asa Gray that natural selection is not guided nor is variation Divinely selected. Reference available upon request. I have sources for my views, TEists do not.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

So you are now a TEist?Can you produce any references for your view?Where is God IN your theory?I am now formally asking for references. God is banished from Darwinian science and all science for that matter - not a matter of opinion.Ray

Everyone claims that their motive is to find and promote the truth. This includes Johnson and myself, of course. The point is that you have excluded Johnson from this pursuit, which made me remind the discussion of your status as an evolutionist.Everyone already knows that evolutionists think IDists are liars and loons and that IDists think evolutionists are loons and liars.Ray

This is a straw man since Johnson has not said anything about "other peoples beliefs." The Johnson definition is also the definition that I give to the phrase "Theory of Evolution" in my up-coming paper. I have altered Johnson's original phraseology but the essence of the definition remains the same - this is why I have credited him. Johnson and I do not get along since *some* things he has published, and my future publication, conflict with one another. But said definition is not where we conflict.There is no prevaricating, you have misunderstood. The Johnson definition is an objective description of ToE. Evolutionary theory and its promoters and scientists, starting with Darwin, attempt to explain nature apart from the power and mind of a Creator. This is why Darwin credited God with First Cause. It is the only place where Deity could have any place because there is no place for any Deity IN your theory.With this said: what is your beef? Are we to believe that if Jane or John Doe created a post that said ToE was an interpretation of data and evidence attempting to explain how a Creator really created, that you would in turn create a post and endorse?It is a self-evident fact: ToE attempts to explain nature apart from Deity involvement.Where is God in ToE?Where is God in Science?What is the problem here?What are you talking about?What is the TEist source for their God involved in evolution claim? Since Johnson's definition corresponds to what ALL evolutionary scholars have said, including Darwin and Mayr, what are you talking about? Johnson nor I ever claimed to. Our definition is objective; subjective evolutionary beliefs of the Christian masses notwithstanding. Never once said this. Our definition is based on the fact that all evolutionary biologists do not consider God as a possibility to explain data or evidence. You know this and have misrepresented the simple issue here from the outset. I have no idea what you are talking about. The above comment has no correspondence to anything said or implied. Mayr said the original Darwinists concluded evolution (not special creationists) was NOT THE WORK OF GOD. Its hard to believe an educated person wrote the above comment. Is it 4:00 AM in Scotland?Are you actually saying ToE does not rule out God? If so, where is God IN ToE and can you provide at least two references of known evolutionary scholars?Ray

The question posed is seeking the definition of the phrase "Theory of Evolution." Or, the theory of HOW evolution HAPPENS:The answer is natural selection, all other mechanisms are auxilliary and subservient. The biological synthesis determined once and for all that Darwin was correct and that natural selection is the main (but not the sole) cause of evolutionary change. This is basic science history 101.And by the way there is no such thing as "neutral drift." There is random drift prevented by the same mechanisms which control evolution.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Evolution: Library: Molecular Evolution: Neutral Drift"One hypothesis suggests that most molecular evolution is driven by random changes in genes, or 'neutral drift'........One, put forward in the late 1960s by Japanese biologist Motoo Kimura is referred to as "neutral drift." According to this hypothesis, most of the changes in DNA inside individuals are the result of "genetic drift" -- random changes that go on all the time and aren't steered by natural selection in one direction or another. Those who support this explanation say that most genetic changes are neither helpful not harmful, but may become common in a population (or disappear entirely) due to chance events. Therefore, random processes explain most of evolution at the molecular level. "Why is random change called neutral drift?Natural selection already prevents an endless random walk. What's the point if NS prevents the walk? "We are here" - right? (LOL).Ray

I would like to address your points but it would be off-topic. We (or rather, you) could start a new thread, but I am not the expert in these matters - you are. A thread would, very quickly, end up as a question and answer topic (which I don't mind) but I think you are not into answering questions (per se) as compared with mutual discussion.However, RAZD has included neutral drift into the definition of ToE here:http://EvC Forum: The Definition for the Theory of Evolution -->EvC Forum: The Definition for the Theory of EvolutionSo it is on-topic. Why is an insignificant concept like neutral drift included in the definition of ToE? ND is outside of the control of natural selection, which is the definition of ToE. RAZD has ignored my post saying that ToE is defined as natural selection, but he includes ND in the definition of ToE.The biological synthesis of the 1930s and 40s specifically convened to settle the issue as to how evolution proceeds. The universal conclusion was natural selection, yet RAZD seems oblivious to this historic fact. NS is the main force causing evolutionary change, and according to Dawkins, NS prevents an endless random walk, the mutations and variations are directed by the selection process. So I do not see the significance of placing neutral drift into the definition of ToE and leaving out the main motor of natural selection and its apparent ability to control random undirected walk. I am sure I have made an error or two in all of this, maybe you could sort it out.Ray

Okay.The following comment is directed at all evolutionists:Evolution is NOT a change in gene frequencies; the same is a temporal mode. Reductionism (genetics) needs explanation but evolution is about populations and the principle object of selection - the organism. Evolution is inferred (after the alleged fact) by observation. There are plenty of scholars who reject reductionism and explicitly favor the naturalist or traditional understanding of how evolution is identified. The theory of how evolution happens is natural selection. RAZD's present list of scientific concepts for the definition of ToE, with NS thrown in, defies all published scholarship on this issue.It does not matter what any given person thinks how ToE is defined, what matters is how scholarship defines ToE: natural selection. Just about everything in this topic, offered by most evolutionists, is subjective and unsupported by assertion.Ray

Johnson's definition says ToE is an interpretation of scientific data attempting to explain how nature may have created itself without any assitance from a Divine Creator.There is no difference between Johnson and your blue box definition. What are we arguing about?Ray