Re: [asa] Global Anti-Darwinism

Gregory,

I believe that you make a mountain of a molehill on this issue. If
you knew me better, you would find that my views of knowledge and the
breadth of the disciplines are probably similar to your own as a
social scientist. I do not believe in the hegemony of the natural
sciences and lean very strongly toward the more traditional
definition of science as knowledge--thus there can be scientific
theology, scientific human studies, as well as the natural sciences.

I also suggest that you're not even reading my posts very carefully
in light of your zeal for this cause. I READILY ADMIT THAT DARWINISM
CAN BE AN IDEOLOGY, especially when it's discussed outside the narrow
sphere of evolutionary biology. However, in the narrow sphere of
evolutionary biology (the classroom, technical papers, etc), the term
"Darwinism" is synonymous with "Darwinian science". Your opening
paragraph suggest that much more is going on. I suggest that it's an
INNOCENT semantic difference. You say tomato, I say tomahto.

It may well be a regrettable semantic difference, but one that must
always be clarified because of this--thus we should say Darwinism as
an ideology or a worldview vs. Darwinism as a biological view. We do
this with the term evolution itself and distinguish between evolution
as a worldview and evolution as a scientific theory. There is a part
of me that really doesn't want to waste time on this kind of debate
on the meaning of words. But, communication is at stake, as you say.
One reason that I make a big deal of this is that some creationists
and ID folks take Darwinism to mean materialistic atheism following
the analysis of Charles Hodge in his "What Is Darwinism?" Of course,
Hodge was analyzing Darwinism as a scientific theory and took Darwin
at his word when he denied teleology in evolution. The denial of
teleology, to Hodge's understanding of Darwin, was a denial of a such
fundamental theological point, God's governance over all creation,
that it was deemed atheistic. Other theists at the time and
immediately following, say Asa Gray and B.B. Warfield (who could call
himself "a Darwinian of purest water"), understood that God
constantly supervises the evolutionary process by Divine Providence
(as he supervises all of nature and all human activity and all of
history). Hodge seemed open to those versions of evolution but didn't
want to link it to Darwin.

Thus, evolution, even the version laid out by Darwin, as much as it
is correct, is no different than any other science. It is an
expression of the creative and providential will of God. As
scientists, just as we don't need to talk about God's providential
involving in atomic theory or planetary motion, we don't need to talk
about it in evolution. Interestingly, atomic theory and planetary
motion, both had their critics because an explanation involving just
physical entities seemed to push God out of the picture. Why this
continues to be an issue with evolution and not with atomic theory
and planetary motion suggests some confusion. Some are being
inconsistent. To be honest, we need the term theistic evolution or
evolutionary creation about as much as we need the term theistic
astronomy or theistic physics or theistic psychology or theistic
sociology... WE DON'T! If all creation is undergirded in its being
and governed by God's sovereign will, then it all is theistic.

The reason I think this semantic issue is important is that some
continue to assume that Darwinism and what is discussed in
evolutionary biology journals and what is taught in the biology
classroom is understood by scientists and textbook writers in the
materialistic, atheistic sense. I personally believe this is
nonsense. I think a Christian (think of Francis Collins, for example)
can use all the same language (and without making any verbal
disclaimers) and can view evolution as under the sovereign control of
the triune God (in the same way that a Christian might talk about any
other scientific idea). I think that this misunderstanding causes
much more confusion than what Gregory is talking about (although it
is related). I think that folks like Dawkins, Provine, Johnson,
Dembski, O'Leary deliberately foist this either/or type language on
us. I want to give some of these the benefit of the doubt and not
suggest that they are ignorant of the theological nuances here, but,
perhaps in the interest of advancing their new atheism or ID causes,
they think it rhetorically helpful to create strawmen and obfuscate
the real issues.

Just as I refuse to give up the perfectly good word "creationist" (I
am one, although not a young-earth creationist), I refuse to give up
the perfectly good words "Darwinist" and "evolutionist" just because
someone turns them into something that they are not.

Finally, a few words about alternatives to Darwinism in evolutionary
biology. As a biologist, I understand Darwinism and neo-Darwinism to
refer to natural selection acting on relatively small changes in
genotype (expressed in phenotype) to produce that vast diversity of
organisms. I think that it is becoming apparent that in the course of
evolution that large changes in genotype are responsible for major
"advances" in evolution. These include chromosome rearrangements,
gene duplications, endosymbiotic events (acquired genomes), etc. I
recently heard two masterful lectures by Lynn Margulis, a key
advocate of the acquiring genome idea and the idea that eukaryotic
cells are the result of a symbiosis between various bacterial forms
(including spirochetes as the origin of the nucleus and microtubule
based cell motility systems). While I'm sure Lynn and I do not share
religious views, I find her arguments about evolution fairly
convincing--her criticism of Darwinism as a scientific theory is
unrelenting.

Additionally, issues of geometric constraints of biological form,
ideas of self-organization, constraints of historical development,
etc. are non-Darwinian principles at work in evolution. I've spelled
out some of these in my critique of Mike Behe's book (on the web at
http://www.asa3.org/evolution/irred_compl.html) and in Loren
Haarsma's and my chapter in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation
entitled "Complexity, Self-Organization, and Design". One of the
reasons that I was such a fan of Stephen J. Gould was his sensitivity
to these other aspects of evolution.

You ask:

> Would it make sense, Terry, to say that you accept certain features
> of Darwinian theory (i.e. the theory/theories that can be
> attributed to Darwin) in biology (as well as geology, botany and
> other natural sciences), but that you do not accept the ideology of
> Darwinism, which is the over-extending of Darwinian theory into a
> worldview, beyond the confines of biology into the realms of
> philosophy, social thought and theology? Or do you deny that the
> latter phenomenon ever happens? Likely you would consent to
> admitting ‘social Darwinism’ is almost thoroughly ideological (e.g.
> eugenics), yet you seem to want to discount the ideology when
> removing the qualifier ‘social’ from ‘Darwinism.’ This is an
> affront (see also, condescension or insult) to social theorists
> because it assumes social thought is mainly ideological while
> biological thought is not.

If it's not clear from what I've said above--
1. I recognize a Darwinian scientific theory.
2. I don't personally accept Darwinism as a ideology or worldview.
3. I do think Darwinian ideas get over-extended into a worldview.
4. I don't think that social thought is mainly ideological.
5. I do think that there are some legitimate evolutionary and even
Darwinian ideas in non-biological spheres.

For what it's worth, the debate about evolution is often about the
biology--at least this is what anti-evolutionists claim. Personally,
I believe that the bottom line issues aren't about the biology at
all, but about what people think the Bible teaches (YEC--6-24 hour
day creation or no death before the fall) or about what people think
are the philosophical and theological implications of the biology
(ID--that evolutionary explanations means no designer). I'd be
thrilled if we could all say, well, it sure looks like evolution
happened the way the textbooks more or less teach it and then hammer
out the rest of the debate in the appropriate context, but no, the
anti-evolutionists seek to undermine the illegitimate atheistic
materialistic conclusions drawn from the biology by seeking to
undermine the biology--while they seem successful at convincing lay
audiences, they are largely deemed unsuccessful by the professional
community. As an example, there's little point in arguing with
Richard Dawkins about biology--that's not where his argument
primarily rests--as the recent writings indicate, he is doing
theology and philosophy.

TG

On Apr 22, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Gregory Arago wrote:

> Terry – Yes, we’ve been over this before, yet it wasn’t resolved
> and I found no flexibility or willingness to see outside of
> computer scientific, biological or theological perspectives on your
> behalf. You admit that “common parlance resists” having different
> words “to describe the ideology from the scientific theory.” I
> should stop there and let this upfront and rather telling admission
> sink in: why is that?! This is the communicative crux of the argument!
>
> You (read: Biologists) seem unwilling to recognize that the
> ‘ideology’ of evolution is even in any way different from the
> ‘science’ of evolution. Why are biologists seemingly incapable of
> distinguishing – are they communicatively inept or uncreative!? It
> might just be that biologists simply don’t understand ideology,
> blinded by their insistence that they are doing ‘pure science,’
> that they are successfully ‘being entirely objective’ (cf. un-
> hermeneutical) while still trapped/ensouled in their subjective
> human bodies. Terry is putting far too little stock in the ‘ism’
> suffix – ‘Darwinism’, at the cost of obscuring communication about
> ‘Darwinian’ science – elevating it far beyond its merits and meanings.
>
> Would it make sense, Terry, to say that you accept certain features
> of Darwinian theory (i.e. the theory/theories that can be
> attributed to Darwin) in biology (as well as geology, botany and
> other natural sciences), but that you do not accept the ideology of
> Darwinism, which is the over-extending of Darwinian theory into a
> worldview, beyond the confines of biology into the realms of
> philosophy, social thought and theology? Or do you deny that the
> latter phenomenon ever happens? Likely you would consent to
> admitting ‘social Darwinism’ is almost thoroughly ideological (e.g.
> eugenics), yet you seem to want to discount the ideology when
> removing the qualifier ‘social’ from ‘Darwinism.’ This is an
> affront (see also, condescension or insult) to social theorists
> because it assumes social thought is mainly ideological while
> biological thought is not.
>
> With regard to George’s first point, I personally do not concur
> with the view that “‘Darwinist’ and ‘Darwinian’ [both] imply an
> ideology, not a scientific theory.” How can ‘Darwinian theory’ be
> considered as un-scientific? I don’t see why Darwin’s theory is not
> a scientific one! Isn’t the label ‘Darwinian’ consistent with ‘the
> theory that Darwin put forth’? To me Darwin’s general theory, based
> on a vast collection of evidence and innovative logic, was a
> scientific one.
>
> I have said: “Distinguish the 'science' from the 'ideology' and
> we're getting somewhere: (neo)Darwinian vs. (neo)Darwinism.” Yet
> there seems no willingness by biologists on a grammatical level to
> accept this (i.e. exactly Terry’s admission above). Sure, some
> proper names fit better than others with ‘ian/ean’ and ‘ism’
> prefixes, while others involve no ideological components at all.
> But let us almost all agree: the term ‘Darwinism’ (as distinguished
> from ‘Darwinian’) is semantically ideological.
>
> I am fully in agreement with both Terry and George that D. O’Leary
> is basically numb, as are many IDists, to the distinction between
> (neo)Darwinian evolution and Darwinism. The fact that her blog is
> called ‘post-Darwinist,’ yet when asked cannot specify what ‘post-
> Darwinist’ means in her own words, shows the ideological,
> propagandist position she has adopted. After all she is not a
> scientist, but a journalist (granted: ASA with its TE tendencies
> does not generate anywhere near the amount of public curiosity that
> the IDM has). The recent conference on ‘Design vs. Darwin’ is yet
> another obvious example. Why such polemics? Is it in keeping with
> the American tradition of ‘evolution vs. creation’? Do they
> honestly not realize that evolutionary theory has changed since
> Darwin’s time in the 19th century? Do they find no merits in
> Darwin’s contribution to scientific knowledge, especially given
> that many IDists are also accepting evolution, even they are also
> ‘evolutionists’ to one degree or another?
>
> Terry writes: “I may call myself a Darwinist and be referring only
> to the scientific theory.”
>
> No, this makes no sense at all! In fact, this is rubbish! Being a
> ‘Darwinist’ actually means something more than just accepting
> ‘Darwinian scientific theory.’ It inescapably implies ideology. Boo
> on the biologists who protest otherwise – their voices are peanuts
> in a greater academic arena, which has the right and the might to
> subdue them! Could this be why you hesitate, Terry, to actually
> call yourself a Darwinist outright (i.e. using the words ‘may call
> myself a Darwinist’)? I am not suggesting to you anything dramatic
> other than to carefully consider the appearance of the labels you
> ‘might’ take when confronted with the imposition of ideology upon
> and underneath science.
>
> When you write: “I think that there are many non-Darwinian
> mechanisms at work in the evolutionary process,” then we are in
> agreement, though, I am not a strictly mechanistic thinker. ASA
> would likely benefit from hearing (again) the non-Darwinian
> mechanisms in your broader neo-evolutionary perspective. When
> people equate ‘Darwinism’ with ‘evolutionary biology’ they betray
> such a possibility as you here suggest. On the other hand, it seems
> that biologists often appear unable to ‘get outside’ of their
> situated knowledge(s) to recognize that ‘evolution’ is a concept
> that goes beyond their small field of study!
>
> ‘Get with the program,’ would be my advice. Accept the diversity of
> contemporary scholarship and recognize the inter-disciplinary usage
> of ‘evolution’ (e.g. anthropology, economics, sociology,
> psychology, political science, culturology, philosophy, etc.)
> rather than being biology-centric. Recognition of diversity and
> interdisciplinary marks an important first step to dis-locating
> evolution from its pretence to being a ‘universal concept’ (e.g.
> GUT ala Dennett/Dawkins). This is what I am primarily arguing
> against in my apparently (though not in all aspects) anti-
> evolutionary position!
>
> “There is a Darwinist ideology but you're right - the proportion of
> Christians who accept evolution who are Darwinists in that sense is
> quite small.” – George
>
> I’m a bit confused by this statement, as I read it backwards. Does
> it mean you are suggesting that Christians or other religious
> thinkers might accept evolution, but no longer accept the Darwinian
> theory of evolution in its entirely? Does it mean that you agree
> that the number of people who call themselves ‘Darwinists’ at ASA
> must be ‘amazingly small’? I would guess only PvM is a Darwinist;
> even Terry is not a Darwinist, nor is Michael Roberts, even if they
> have all due respect for Darwin’s contribution to natural science
> and psychology.
>
> ‘Evolutionism’ imo is a much broader ideology than Darwinism. The
> concept of ‘evolution’ predates Darwin and is used in fields of
> study far beyond where Darwin applied it (e.g. reading recently A.
> Comte’s usage of ‘evolution’ in 1824). Darwin’s (co-coined concept
> duo) ‘natural selection’ was admittedly ambiguous in regard to
> agency and causality; in social-humanitarian realms it makes more
> sense to speak of ‘human selection’ than ‘natural selection.’ That
> is, unless all persons are inevitably naturalists; assuming that
> natural explanations account for all there is in our universe. But
> it seems obvious that neither Terry nor George would accept the
> label of ‘naturalist’ according to such a reading. This is what
> returns me again and again to wondering how a Christian natural
> scientist can accept the label of ‘naturalist’ without at the same
> time contradicting their theistic beliefs. Ironically, this is
> where the i+d argument is also met, and where it doesn’t seem to me
> that a balance has yet been reached in the American science and
> religion discourse.
>
> People can accept evolutionary theory without being Darwinists, da,
> perhaps. But can people accept Darwinian theory without being
> evolutionists? This is imo the more important question.
>
> George writes: “I think that evolution is a process through which
> the Holy Trinity works (thus, en passant, getting past the mere
> theism of theistic evolution.”
>
> Well, I’d love to play chess one day with George! The above quote
> is an open admission of what seems to be a kind of ‘evolutionary
> theology.’ As for my tastes, I have rejected the philosophical
> inversion made by A.N. Whitehead, who is the main figure behind
> process-oriented thought in America (please someone do tell of who
> is more significant to process-thought than Whitehead!). It is all
> too focused on what changes rather than on what stays the same for
> my liking. But it is indeed a contemporary position to be a
> ‘process theorist,’ i.e. evolutionarily adjusted, so I applaud
> George’s contemporaneous thinking.
>
> George also writes: “there is not the remotest chan[c]e that the
> reality of descent with modification will be abandoned, & in that
> sense evolution isn't going to go away.”
>
> Here we are in agreement, and it seems this is a topos where Ted,
> Michael, David, Dave, George, Terry, Randy, myself and others can
> all come to. Thankfully they will no longer be scolding me or
> wrinkling their brows at me on this issue. :-) ‘Descent with
> modification’ need not be abandoned, though evolution can be SHRUNK
> from its current ideological mantle of universal (i.e. including
> social-cultural) evolution, the likes of which drive the Dennett’s,
> Dawkins’ & de Chardin’s of the worlds’ rhetoric. Tuck evolution
> into its legitimate tiny corner of scholastic relevance and you
> will find no problem from the plethora of other disciplines that
> have been contaminated and even plagued by the process-oriented
> ideology of evolutionary social-humanitarian thought.
>
> Just as a question of history and creativity: does anyone know you
> coined the concept duo ‘evolutionary creationist’ if it was not D.
> Lamoureux? It is doubtful that the word simply ‘evolved’ into
> existed without human agency/selection being involved.
>
> Respectfully yours,
>
> G. Arago
>
>
> "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
> Gregory,
>
> We've been over this before. I, and I think most biologists, would
> just disagree with you here. Darwinism is not necessarily an
> ideology. You're putting way too much stock in the "-ism" suffix.
> I've admitted that it can be an ideology, and I've admitted that it
> may be useful to have different words to describe the ideology from
> the scientific theory, but common parlance resists such.
> Consequently, I may call myself a Darwinist and be referring only to
> the scientific theory. In truth I think that Darwinism (as a
> scientific theory) is inadequate--I think that there are many non-
> Darwinian mechanisms at work in the evolutionary process.
>
> For what it's worth, I don't really think Denis coined the term
> evolutionary creationist. While he's been an active promoter of the
> term and a key spokesman for it in the past decade, he's a relative
> newcomer. I'm sure Denis will find my pointing this out somewhat
> amusing.
>
> TG
>
> With respect to Gregory's remarks below -
>
> 1) "Darwinist" and "Darwinian" imply an ideology, not a scientific
> theory. Nobody calls people who accept, & even work on, special or
> general relativity "Einsteinists." Even for those who think that
> those theories have implications that extend beyond physics are not
> considered adherents of "Einsteinism." There is a Darwinist
> ideology but you're right - the proportion of Christians who accept
> evolution who are Darwinists in that sense is quite small.
> Unfortunately the term is thrown around by (a) Darwinists pretend
> that people can't "really" accept evolution unless they accept the
> ideology and (b) the anti-evolutionists who identify everyone who
> accepts evolution as a Darwinist. This is, for example, the
> practice of Ms. O'Leary, as evidenced by her wretched UD piece
> which was discussed here recently.
>
> 2) "Evolutionary creation" is a better term than "theistic
> evolution" but the latter term is better established & thus not
> likely to be changed. (Think, e.g., of futile attempts to come up
> with a better term than "big bang.") But how much difference does
> this really make? Do we really need a specific label for our
> positions on each of the issues in the theology-science dialogue?
> Am I a theistic expanding universist? If asked my position on the
> issue of creation & evolution, I'll state it briefly - I think that
> evolution is a process through which the Holy Trinity works (thus,
> en passant, getting past the mere theism of theistic evolution.
>
> 3) Scientific theories change of course, & it's likely that in the
> future many aspects of our current evolutionary theories will be
> superseded. But there is not the remotest change that the reality
> of descent with modiffication will be abandoned, & in that sense
> evolution isn't going to go away. There's about as much chance of
> that as of new discoveries in geophysics bringing about a
> resurgence of flat earth theories. (& I say that as an expelled
> member of the International Flat Earth Research Society!)
>
> Shalom
> George
>
> On Apr 21, 2007, at 3:36 PM, Gregory Arago wrote:
>
> > If for only the reason that today while fostering a broad discssion
> > titled, "Global Warming, Ecology, Creation and Evolution" for about
> > sixty students from 9 countries, and on one of the slides I showed
> > "The Creation of Animals" by Tintoretto, which is featured atop the
> > Economist article, let me add a comment or two on this grand-global
> > topic of anti-Darwinism.
> >
> > Honestly, how many people at ASA would call themselves a
> > 'Darwinist'? The number must be amazingly small. Why? Because
> > Darwin's theories do not encompass any single discipline in the
> > academy and because it would be ludicrous to equate 'Darwinism'
> > with 'evolutionary biology;' just plain silly! Darwinian theory -
> > fine. Darwin's contribution to science, no problem. But can a
> > scientifically-minded Christian today really be an ideological
> > Darwinist? Doubtful. Let the voices here please mount an objection
> > if they exist.
> >
> > Distinguish the 'science' from the 'ideology' and we're getting
> > somewhere: (neo)Darwinian vs. (neo)Darwinism.
> >
> > "Those like myself who are evolutionary creationists may have a
> harder
> > time of it in the years ahead. I wonder about the future of science,
> > certainly the politics of science, in the foreseeable future." - Bob
> > There is no need for you to have a harder time of it in the years
> > ahead. But what it will require is for you to be willing to embrace
> > a paradigm that is not caught up in early-mid 20th century creation
> > vs. evolution discourse, that acknowledges the legitimate 'science'
> > in the 'modern post-Darwinian evolutionary natural science
> > synthesis,' and that welcomes innovations to theory and method that
> > eclipse the out-dated paradigm of 19th century evolution in non-
> > natural science scholarship and academia. If you are stuck on the
> > idea that 'evolution is only discussed in natural sciences - the
> > only place it is really relevant,' then it seems you may indeed
> > have a hard time of it. Since you acknowledge the 'politics of
> > science' and thus perhaps the impact of the hermeneutic/cultural
> > turn on 'science' this may help to situate the contribution of
> > science to society in comparison to other values and meanings of
> > human knowledge.
> >
> > Even the term 'evolutionary creationist' (though I sincerely
> > appreciate the contribution of D. Lamoureux, the first Chair of a
> > program in Religion and Science in Canada, who, it seems, coined
> > the concept duo - 'evolutionary creationist,' please correct me if
> > I'm wrong) is a vestige of yesteryear rather than a glimpse of the
> > future. The same problem confronts those who live in a 'post-
> > modern' reality, whereas they/we have not yet found/coined a
> > positive replacement for that which is merely 'after,' i.e. 'post'
> > something else. It is plain that being 'post-Darwinian' is not
> > necessarily consistent with being anti-Darwin-ISM, as this thread
> > indicates. Nevertheless, distinguishing the ideology from the
> > 'science' seems much more difficult to do for natural scientists
> > than for philosophers, social scientists or theologians.
> >
> > I submit that David O's suggestion of 'theistic evolution' or
> > 'evolutionary creation' as a 'robust third way' is unlikely. A
> > responsible Christian searching through the evidence (from their
> > situated, partial academic background) is, however, to be
> > acknowledged and applauded as suitable action during a time of
> > transition. Nobody ever confuses P. Johnson with being a biologist
> > or botanist! The fact that the awaiting non-evolutionary (though
> > still likely 'process' relevant) paradigm has not yet arrived on
> > scene does not negate the possibility that our science will
> > inevitably move beyond evolutionary theory. To admit this
> > possibility is to throw doubt on both TE and EC ideologies, which
> > are quite obviously, given the marrying of their two concepts, not
> > limited to either science or theology.
> >
> > Let me add that this past week I met, in a Department of
> > Evolutionary Biology, with the organizer of the 'secular science'
> > promotion in response to the trial in St. Petersburg,
> > Russiamentioned by the Economist article. Our discussion was quite
> > different, please be assured, than it would have been in America
> > with America's peculiar/specific history of court cases and where
> > 'creation vs. evolution' leftovers are still alive in people's
> > vocabulary in a similar way to how 'cold war' attitudes remain on
> > both sides among those who grew up and were educated/indoctrinated
> > in that generation. A New Day Shall Come.
> >
> >
> > G. Arago
>
> Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk
> email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 24 06:04:11 2007