On Fri, 11 Oct 1996 23:46:37 -0400, Terry M. Gray wrote re *Full House:
The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin* (Harmony Books, 1996) by
Stephen Jay Gould:
[...]
DB>"Only two options seem logically available in our attempted denial. We
>might, first of all, continue to espouse biblical literalism and insist that
>the earth is but a few thousand years old, with humans created by God just a
>few days after the inception of planetary time. But such mythology is not
>an option for thinking people, who must respect the basic factuality of both
>time s immensity and evolution s veracity." -pg. 19
>DB>Does Gould just lump every creationist into the same camp: young
>earthers? Is it the easiest way for him to discredit ANY
>creationist view?
>TG>Gould has little patience for those who would deny the fact of an
>old earth and "the fact of evolution". It does not seem to me that
>his vehemence extends to those who attempt to reconcile a Christian
>faith with these "facts". So, if you regard EC/TE as a form of
>creationism, which I do, then I don't think Gould is necessarily
>discrediting ANY creationist view. I think that he would put
>EC/TE's in the second camp of attempting to spin-doctor the
>philosophical implications of evolution (as he sees them) that we
>are an accident of history.
We don't have to guess whether Gould regards "EC/TE as a form of
creationism". He took part in an attack against the ASA for teaching
theistic evolution (ie. that theism is compatible with evolution),
under the heading: "Scientists Decry a Slick New Packaging of
Creationism":
"The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) incurred the wrath of
Darwinists for mixing the wrong kind of religion with science. The
ASA's membership is made up of science teachers and others who
identify themselves as evangelical Christians committed both to Jesus
Christ and to a scientific understanding of the natural world. The
fundamentalist creation-scientists split from the ASA years ago in
disgust at its members' willingness to accept not only the geological
evidence that the earth is very old, but also the theory of biological
evolution. The ASA leadership has generally embraced "compatibilism"
(the doctrine that science and religion do not conflict because they
occupy separate realms) and "theistic evolution"...Retribution
quickly followed. A California "science consultant" named William
Bennetta, who makes a career of pursuing creationists, organized a
posse of scientific heavyweights to condemn the ASA's pamphlet as "an
attempt to replace science with a system of pseudoscience devoted to
confirming Biblical narratives." A journal called The Science
Teacher published a collection of essays edited by Bennetta, titled
"Scientists Decry a Slick New Packaging of CREATIONISM." Nine
prominent scientists, including GOULD, Futuyma, Eldredge, and Sarich,
contributed heavy-handed condemnations of Teaching Science. The
pervasive message was that the ASA is a deceitful creationist front
which disguises its Biblical literalist agenda under a pretence of
scientific objectivity." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993,
pp128-130. Emphasis mine).
TG>I am sure that Gould regards the factuality of evolution to be
>established just a certainly as the factuality of an old-earth and
>thus regards the doubting of Phil Johnson to be as ridiculous as the
>doubting of the YEC's. He unfairly accuses Phil of the YEC
>position, but in Gould's mind all thinking people must accept the
>"basic factuality of both time's immensity AND evolution's veracity.
>I cannot say that I'm not sympathetic with Gould here although I
>will readily admit (with Gould, I think) that there remains much to
>be learned.
The key question here is what exactly does Gould mean by "the
factuality of evolution"? In his famous "Evolution as Fact and
Theory" article (reprinted in his book Hen's Teeth and Horses Toes),
Gould states that "evolution is a fact" yet he admits that no one
knows *how* it happened:
"...human beings evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so
by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be
discovered.' (Gould S.J., "Evolution as Fact and Theory", Hen's
Teeth and Horse's Toes, Penguin: London, 1984, p254)
"we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely
understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact)
occurred." ("Evolution as Fact and Theory", p255)
"...amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been led to doubt the fact
that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened."
("Evolution as Fact and Theory", p256)
But if: 1. evolution happened by a "mechanism...yet to be
discovered"; 2. if scientists are "far...from completely
understanding the mechanisms...by which evolution..occurred"; and
3. biologist after 130 years are still "debating how it happened";
then how does Gould know it *was* evolution? It could (for example)
have been by progressive creation!
Gould defends this "fact of evolution" by first trying to rule out
"creationism" as "scientific" *in principle*:
"The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart...before we even
reach the supposed factual details of their assault against
evolution...their own belief is not science, and...`scientific creationism'
is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what
Orwell called `newspeak'...`Scientific creationism' is a self-
contradictory, nonsense phrase..." ("Evolution as Fact and Theory",
pp254,256)
He then further sets up a strawman by define creationism as belief in
the 19th century doctrine of separate creations:
"creationists claim that `the dogma of separate creations,' as Darwin
characterized it a century ago, is a scientific theory meriting equal
time with evolution in high school biology curricula. " ("Evolution as
Fact and Theory", p256).
Finally, having ensured that there can be no opposition, Gould is ready
to actually defend the "fact of evolution"! He gives three lines of
argument:
1. "evolution in action", ie. microevolution (eg. Peppered Moth,
etc):
"Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general
arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence
of evolution in action, from both field and laboratory. This
evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly
everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the
laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became
black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths
rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by
blending into the background.) ("Evolution as Fact and Theory",
p257).
Apart from the fact that Gould himself has written against this
view that: "Macroevolution (major structural transition) is nothing
more than microevolution (flies in bottles) extended." (Gould S.J.,
"The Return of the Hopeful Monster", "The Panda's Thumb",
Penguin: London, 1980, p156), he also acknowedges that even
creationists accept such microevolution:
"Creationists do not deny these observations; how could they?"
("Evolution as Fact and Theory", p257).
So by Gould's own admission, his first line of argument for the "fact
of evolution" fails to support it except in a trivial and
uncontroversial sense.
2. The "imperfection of nature":
"The second argument-that the imperfection of nature reveals
evolution-strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution
should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation
expressed by some organisms- the camber of a gull's wing, or
butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic
leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise
creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the
tracks of past history. And past history-the evidence of descent-is
the mark of evolution." ("Evolution as Fact and Theory", p257)
This is a curious "scientific" argument. It really is a
*theological* claim that God wouldn't create through a historical
process using secondary causes. Johnson calls this the "God
wouldn't have done it this way" argument, and says:
"These are rhetorical questions, but they point to legitimate starting
points for investigation. The features Futuyma cites may exist
because a Creator employed them for some inscrutable purpose...The
task of science is not to speculate about why God might have done
things this way, but to see if a material cause can be established by
empirical investigation." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
InterVarsity Press, Illinois, Second Edition, 1993, pp70-71)
"In any case, the use of theological arguments-`God wouldn't have
done it this way' -is a very questionable way of proving that
Darwinian evolution was capable of creating complex biological
organs." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p228)
Gould's second argument for the "fact of evolution' therefore also
fails. It might be valid against an extreme YEC or 19th century
creationist argument, but not against broad, "Old-Earth" creationism,
such as Progressive Creationism, for example. It really is an argument
for common descent, which is necessary, but not sufficient to establish
"the fact of evolution", as even Darwin acknowledged:
"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a
naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on
their embryological relations, their geographical distribution,
geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the
conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had
descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a
conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it
could be shown HOW the innumerable species inhabiting this world have
been modified...." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species", 6th edition
1872, Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1967 reprint, p18.
Emphasis mine)
3. "transitions are often found in the fossil record":
"The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in
the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common-and should
not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next
section)-but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often
claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of
mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by
step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located
at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the
mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins...If God made each of
the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he
create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern
features-increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger
body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith
thereby?" (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin", Penguin: London, 1977,
p258)
Apart from the fact that Gould has written more than any other major
Darwinist on the *lack* of fossil transitions:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees
that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of
their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the
evidence of fossils. (Gould S.J, "The Episodic Nature of
Evolutionary Change", "The Panda's Thumb", Penguin: London, 1980,
pp150-151).
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt." (Gould S.J., "The Return of
the Hopeful Monster", "The Panda's Thumb", Penguin: London, 1980,
p157).
Gould's third argument is really just a restatement of the second -
it is another "God wouldn't have done it that way" argument. It
might be valid against YEC, but not again PC, for example, which
does not necessarily rule out common descent. Population Geneticist
David Wilcox and Molecular Biologist Mike Behe, accept common descent,
without accepting Darwinian evolution:
"I want to make my focus very clear. This paper concerns the
appearance of biological structure, not the tie of such appearance to
biotic descent. Evidence for structural difference/descent does not
constitute evidence for the mechanism by which structural
transformation took place. Therefore, the sorts of evidence that
simply indicate relationship and/or descent from a common ancestor
(e.g., molecular clock data, fossil sequences, chromosomal banding,
and other measures of similarity) are not relevant to this question
unless they indicate the nature of the creative mechanism that
produced novelty during that descent. Evidence of ancestry does not
imply knowledge of the morphogenetic mechanisms that are able to
produce novelty." (Wilcox D.L. "A Blindfolded Watchmaker: The
Arrival of the Fittest", in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism:
Science or Philosophy?", Foundation for Thought and Ethics:
Richardson TX, 1994, p195)
"I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a
common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular
reason to doubt it...Although Darwin's mechanism-natural
selection working on variation- might explain many things,
however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not
think it surprising that the new science of the very small might
change the way we view the less small." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's
Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Free
Press: New York, 1996, pp5-6).
Indeed, Denton points out that common descent is compatible with many
philosophies of nature, not just Darwinian evolution:
"It is true that both genuine homologous resemblance, that is, here
the phenomenon has a clear genetic and embryological basis (which as
we have seen above is far less common than is often presumed), and
the hierarchic patterns of class relationships are suggestive of some
kind of theory of descent. But neither tell us anything about HOW
THE DESCENT OR EVOLUTION MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED, as to whether the
process was gradual or sudden, or as to whether the causal mechanism
was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic OR EVEN CREATIONIST. Such a
theory of descent is therefore devoid of any significant meaning and
equally compatible with almost any philosophy of nature." (Denton
M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London, 1985,
pp154-155. My emphasis)
So Gould's third argument also fails to establish "the fact of
evolution".
TG>Phil Johnson would argue that this is the very thing that makes
>EC/TE so tragic. It doesn't ruffle the feathers of the naturalistic
>establishment, so they are content to let us believe our little
>stories about God's role AS LONG AS HE DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE
>(i.e. as long as he doesn't appear anywhere in our theory). But,
>in my view ruffling the feathers of the naturalistic establishment
>is the goal of theistic science. Just because SJG or PJ doesn't
>believe that EC/TE's think God isn't doing anything that makes a
>difference doesn't mean that we think that or that He isn't.
One would have thought that if Romand 1:18-22 was true, then it
should be "the goal" of "EC/TE" not just of "theistic science" to
"ruffle the feathers of the naturalistic establishment"? :-)
TG>As I've said many times on this forum, I can walk with Gould
>perhaps for the distance, as long as I see whatever comes to pass
>under the plan, purpose, design, and control of God. However it
>appears to us, even if involving chance, is beside the point. God
>is in control whether I can detect his precise works or not.
Absolutely. If Neo-Darwinism's "blind watchmaker" mechanism by
random mutation and natural selection is eventually proved true, that
would not rule out God being in total control of the process. The
Bible clearly teaches that God is totally in control of so-called
"random" events:
"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the
LORD" (Pr 16:33); "But someone drew his bow at random and hit the
king of Israel between the sections of his armor" (1Ki 22:34. cf. 1Ki
22:1ff.)
There is no doubt that Neo-Darwinian macroevolution could be
harmonised with Biblical theism. In fact, Oxford philosopher Richard
Swinburne believes that Neo-Darwinian macroevolution is an
evidence for theism:
"The Argument from the Evolution of Animals and Men. The other
phenomena which I have mentioned are also phenomena best explained by
postulating the existence and creative activity of God, and so add to
the cumulative case for His existence. Consider now the evolution of
animals and humans. In the middle of the last century Darwin set out
his impressive theory of evolution by natural selection to account
for the existence of animals and humans. Animals varied in various
ways from their parents (some were taller, some shorter, some fatter,
some thinner, some had beginnings of a wing, others did not; and so
on). Those animals with characteristics which made them best fitted
to survive, survived and handed on their characteristics to the next
generation. But, although in general resembling their parents, their
offspring varied from them, and those variations which best fitted
the animal to survive were again the ones most likely to be handed on
to another generation. This process went on for millions of years
producing the whole range of animals which we have today, each
adapted to survive in a different environment. Among the
characteristics giving advantage in the struggle for survival was
intelligence, and the selections for this characteristic eventually
led to the evolution of man. Such is Darwin's account of why we have
today animals and men. As far as it goes, his account is surely
right. But there are two crucial matters beyond its scope. First,
the evolutionary mechanism which Darwin describes only works because
there are certain laws of biochemistry (animals produce many
offspring, these vary in various ways from the parents, and so forth)
and certain features of the environment (there is a limited amount of
food, drink, space, and so on). But why are there these laws rather
than other laws? Perhaps because they follow from the most
fundamental laws of physics. But the question then arises as to why
the fundamental laws of physics are such as to give rise to laws of
evolution. If we can answer this question we should do so. There is
again available the same simple answer-that there is a God who makes
matter behave in accord with such laws in order to produce a world
with animals and men...the question inevitably arises why the laws of
evolution are as they are. All this theism can explain." (Swinburne
R.G., "The Justification of Theism", Truth Journal)
But, even though Neo-Darwinian macroevolution may be God's way of
creating, it first it needs to be shown that Neo-Darwinian
macroevolution is true.
[...]
TG>If you put what I said above with this notion of chance increase
>in variation resulting in increased complexity, all of that can be
>true and still have God in absolute control of every detail of the
>process and its outcome. Thus from an evolutionary biology point of
>view Gould may be absolutely correct. He just fails to recognize
>God's role in the whole process.
Agreed, but what "process" exactly is that? :-) The Biology
professors don't know any more. For example, Christopher
Wills, Professor of Biology at the University of California, San
Diego, says that natural selection has only a passive role:
"Kimura's view of evolution has thus been amply confirmed. Random
events are responsible for much of evolutionary change. Although it
turns out that selection does play a role in these changes, it is
largely a passive one, like that of a gardener who weeds BUT DOES NOT
PLANT." (Wills C., "The Runaway Brain: The Evolution of Human
Uniqueness", HarperCollins: London, 1994, p219. My emphasis).
Or Lynn Margulis, Professor of Biology at the University of
Massachusetts, believes that an accumulation of mutations cannot
even accomplish the formation of a new species:
"Lynn Margulis is highly respected for her widely accepted theory
that mitochondria, the energy source of plant and animal cells, were
once independent bacterial cells. And Lynn' Margulis says that
history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor
twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious
persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology. ' (Mann C., "Lynn Margulis:
Science's Unruly Earth Mother," Science, 252, 1991, 378-381). At one
of her many public talks she asks the molecular biologists in the
audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a
new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes
unmet. Proponents of the standard theory, she says, `wallow in their
zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of
Darwin-having mistaken him.... Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the
slow accrual of mutations), is in a complete funk.' " (Behe M.J.,
"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", Free
Press: New York, 1996, p26)
I presume these senior professors of Biology have read the much
vaunted primary literature? :-) If they cannot agree on what exactly
is the mechanism of "evolution" is, then why should we believe them
when they say that it is a "fact"?
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------