To continue discussion on this topic:
No Worries. Yes, I agree, any view of reality would have to account for causes, process and outcomes.Fair enough...
1) A cause or force (force being a subset of causes).
2) An outcome of causes.
3) A process.
So I'd like this discussion not to get all twisty and turny because it has educated scientists far smarter than I covering it already.
However, to my mind, the Theory of Evolution (passing on genetic traits) is very closely aligned to Natural selection (survival of the fittest) and it's easy to get the two conflated.
The ultimate goal of life is to live, oddly enough the reason and name are aligned. ToE and NS support life.
Because the world & universe is not a static place, life must change with it, or find itself unsuitable for habitation of said world or universe.
Those that are alive are there because of a sequence of causes/consequences and processes of trying to stay alive. Some make it, some don't.
Sorry to conflate cause, outcome and process, but I think an overarching theory about life and how we got here would contain all 3?
An efficient cause does not necessarily need a beginning. Contingent causes sure. I am just talking about ordinary everyday efficient causes.It's not my view, but one you have argued for in the past iirc when you've talked about Aquinas. You mentioned a natural end, but must an efficient cause also have a beginning? Forgive me if I misunderstood, but I thought that was what you were driving at.
So what is the original definition of natural selection as defined by Darwin? Careful, Darwin was actually a teleologist. There is actually a very interesting contemporary debate about whether natural selection is a cause/force or an outcome of causes/forces. I tend to agree with the latter interpretation as it removes all teleology from natural selection itself.Here you paraphrase the previous definition of "Natural selection" which you table in a previous reply to me, which you took almost word for word out of one of the many references there are available on "Natural Selection".
Those same references you quote define " Natural Selection" as one of the processes that describe the evolutionary process defined within the TOE.
So, in actual fact, depending on what you want to say or describe, all three would apply, provided you read the definition within the context of the specific paragraph or description.
So, the correct way to Understand "Natural Selection" is to stick to the original definition as defined by Darwin, including the changes made over time as the TOE has been refined, and NOT to try and come up with your own definition. He made a specific point of using the word "natural" to exclude an external force from the definition.
What you might or might not know is that there were other scientists and philosophers before Darwin that had noticed the similarities between animals and attributed it or used their observations to try and show that there must have been an outside agency involved, which then means "selection" is no longer a natural process but a deliberate action or force. Hence why there is this pre-occupation among some to try and say "Natural Selection" is a cause or force. And that is what the modern Creationist (Intelligent design Lobby) has picked up on saying basically, "okay" we will agree there is a selection going on but it is an outside force that is doing it deliberately.
Finally, at the risk of repeating myself and others', Creationism has no scientific substance behind it. It chooses a selective set of "evidence" which none of them has developed, described or quantified themselves to reach a preconceived conclusion, which fits their narrow belief system. Therefore it can never be a Scientific Theory because it has decided beforehand what the outcome is and then scratched around for evidence to justify and prove that outcome.