Re: An introduction

forcythe@xxxxxxx wrote:

[snip biography]

Hi. Welcome, and all that.

As for my agenda, I have two main beefs with the dialogue I have
observed here.

Theologically, in the bulk of conversation religion and fundamentalism
are treated as equal. Fundamentalism is a dynamic unto itself
regardless of the scripture it blindly adheres to, and I feel much more
affinity for thoughtful practitioners of any religion than to a
fundamentalist with whom I happen to have scripture in common. I
understand that there is a battle afoot, and those of a rational
viewpoint are trying to hold back the tide of fundamentalism being
advanced in a number of our social structures. However, setting it up
as a battle between the outliers on either side makes little sense, and
seems to me to be doomed to have the fundamentalist viewpoint win over
the purely scientific. I believe that whichever side can garner the
support of the rational theists will prevail.

Agreed.

Scientifically why is evolutionary theory treated almost exclusively as
Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism and its unyielding focus on natural
selection and an oversimplified concept of mutation via genetic
mutation? Both sides of the debate are often guilty of this error, and
it makes the whole discussion pretty useless.

Agreed for the first part. But it only makes a part of the discussion
useless.

Clearly natural
selection is very important as the "bottom line" so to speak,
determining in the end the differential advancement of existing
variation, but it speaks little to the source of variation.

Of course. It speaks nothing to the source of variation, which is mutation.

Let's not
forget the other forces of evolution that are at play. Phenotypic
mutation is not due to genetic mutation alone.

Phenotypic mutation is not a technical term, to my knowledge. Phenotypic
differences may or may not be related to genetic differences. But those
that aren't related to genetic differences can only rarely have any
significance to evolution.

There are much stronger
forces at work to change genomes than mutation.

If there are, I don't know about them, or any evidence for their
existence. Can you explain?

Well, if this doesn't get my urge to post off my chest, I hope to take
part in the conversations to come. I look forward to the assaults from
all sides that typify this debate.

You will not be disappointed, though you might not get any replies from
creationists.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An introduction
    ... continued my theological pursuits with independent studies of scripture ... Having matured in my understanding of theology and organized ... in the bulk of conversation religion and fundamentalism ... selection and an oversimplified concept of mutation via genetic ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An introduction
    ... viewpoint are trying to hold back the tide of fundamentalism being ... got elected in part because the attacks on fundamentalism were ... selection and an oversimplified concept of mutation via genetic ... As to mutation, I think this is a crucial aspect to evolution, the sine qua ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An introduction
    ... viewpoint are trying to hold back the tide of fundamentalism being ... ultimately the destruction of science as a process. ... able to garner the support of the rational theists while the other has ... selection and an oversimplified concept of mutation via genetic ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An introduction
    ... viewpoint are trying to hold back the tide of fundamentalism being ... ultimately the destruction of science as a process. ... able to garner the support of the rational theists while the other has ... selection and an oversimplified concept of mutation via genetic ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An introduction
    ... viewpoint are trying to hold back the tide of fundamentalism being ... selection and an oversimplified concept of mutation via genetic ... me that the features that are of interest in the debate are ...
    (talk.origins)