Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

Greg,
  I think I clearly stated I was talking about the biological theory of evolution. I also simply stated how different people use the term "neo-Darwinism" without claiming which is correct. As for your "authority" of "whose evolutionary theory," I think there is an unfortunate tendency in some camps to use quotations as proof or evidence of what is true. For example, a quote from Darwin or Dawkins or the like is sometimes used as proof of what evolution really is. But science doesn't work that way. It's not an authoritarian discipline. The focus is on the evidence and the logical structure on which it is based.
  The evidence is strong for the biological theory of evolution. The detailed underlying mechanisms seem to have a high degree of randomness or scientific purposelessness. Divine purposefulness is not precluded by that observation. You may inject semantics if you wish, but these observations are independent of labels.
  Randy

----- Original Message -----
  From: Gregory Arago
  To: Randy Isaac ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:51 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

  Randy writes:
  "Confusion ensues when we move back and forth between these two definitions without clarification"

  My two definitions contrast natural-physical neo-Darwinism (what you say is 'parallel with 'evolutionism') and human-social neo-Darwinism. Philosophy is helpful to contrast them. Both are ideologies (ism's); one is based on science and ideology more than the other. You have moved back and forth between them in saying that "human creative activity may involve random actions." This is not, however, within the domain of natural-physical science to proclaim, unless one would reduce human beings to mere physical-nature. 'Modern synthesis' (read: eVo biology) vs. evolutionary philosophy is another way two-way define it.

  With all due respect, if you wanted to 'pick up on Logan's response' then you need to try to deal with his language, on his terms, and not impose your own. If you wish not to discuss 'neo-Darwinism,' as it appears almost everyone on this list except David O. and myself have chosen to do (in 30+ posts), that is of course your perogative (and George calls it 'of little importance'). I just don't see how in doing so you can claim to be addressing Gage's criticism of your (and other TE/EC's) position.

  The charge of confusion of course goes both ways. In this case the burden is on natural scientists who do not realize the depth penetration of Spencerian and Malthusian evolution in contrast to (neo-)Darwinian evolution. Does anyone at ASA remember the significance of Talcott Parsons' evolutionary universals'? Do you know Karl Popper's 'evolutionary epistemology'? Or Mary Midgley's 'evolution as a religion'? Or Jurgen Habermas' 'communication and the evolution of society'? These all contain a significance that is forgotten at ASA, though they are entirely relevant for defining a 'orthodox evolutionary theory.'

  If it is incorrect to suggest that "orthodox evolutionary theory must be abandoned to acknowledge divine guidance," then question pops up: which evolutionary theory, whose evolution? I am neither an atheistic evolutionist nor an IDist, but I oppose evolutionary theories in a non-biological sphere.
  Orthodox evolutionary theory really is "innately 'unguided' at any level" - is this now the main question? If you disagree, then exactly who do you invoke as (a) representative(s) of 'orthodox evolutionary theory' that claims it IS guided? Is it just contemporary TE/EC's who are representatives of 'orthodox evolutionary theory,' thus justifying my question of TE/ECs changing the scientific definition of 'neo-Darwinism' to suit their particular theological position?

  I agree with your statement entirely, Randy, to the effect that, "He [Darwin] seemed driven by the lack of perception of purpose of the end product rather than the process." The purpose of the process is...more process. Right?

  Gregory

  p.s. the word 'random' is not used in the above, just 'guided/unguided'

  Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
    From Gregory Arago:

    The crux of Gage's argument seems to be the following:
      ... The words random and natural are meant to exclude intelligence. If God guides which mutations happen, the mutations are not random; if God chooses which organisms survive so as to guide life's evolution, the selection is intelligent rather than natural."

      Gage's point is that 'neo-Darwinism' is not the same thing as 'guided evolution.' The bolded sentence is ID's lynchpin. 'Guided evolution' involves a theological reading that Darwin omitted in his works and that a vast majority of 'modern synthesis' contributors (exception Dobzhansky and Fisher, outside of their scientific publications) neglected or even ridiculed. Would anyone disagree with that? If so, the following point awaits:

      Gage's claim that Randy "had to abandon orthodox evolutionary theory to keep intelligent guidance" appears valid. If 'orthodox evolutionary theory' means 'no intelligent guidance,' which is what Darwin claimed and what J. Huxley cemented for the mainstream meaning of 'neo-Darwinism,' then Gage's claim that Isaac is an 'evolutionist' but not a 'neo-Darwinist' would be legitimate. Otherwise, are TE's trying to change the scientific definition of 'neo-Darwinism' to suit their particular theological position?

    It seems that there is a lot of confusion to be cleared up. We need to sort out a variety of ways in which terms are used. Careless use of terminology keeps us going in circles. It appears that "neo-Darwinism" is used in two (at least) different ways. One is simply the synthesis of Darwin's biological theory of evolution with genetic DNA mechanisms. This is the core biological theory of evolution. The term also is used as a parallel to "evolutionism" and refers specifically to Darwin's philosophical interpretation of his theory which is that, by definition, it has no divine guidance. Confusion ensues when we move back and forth between these two definitions without clarification. I did not use the term "neo-Darwinism" in my letter--only in the subject of this thread in order to pick up on Logan's response.

    Logan (and Greg) continue the confusion when saying that orthodox evolutionary theory must be abandoned to acknowledge divine guidance. This is true only in the mistaken assertion, usually by both atheistic evolutionists and ID's, that orthodox evolutionary theory is innately unguided at any level.

    Much more confusion is created by the use of the term random or non-random in natural processes. I risk creating even more confusioin but let me try to change the perspective a bit. Essentially there is no such thing as a random event or non-random event in nature. Everything in nature appears to be a bounded probabilistic event. The key possible exceptions so far are the force of gravity and the dark matter/energy since these forces have not been quantized. But most of what we see is the result of random effects in the bounds of a probability function. No random process is unconstrained.

    Hence it does not make sense to speak of evolution as being either random or not random any more than we would describe the burning of hydrogen in the presence of oxygen as random or not random. It's not the right way to think about it. All processes have randomness somewhere in the details but all processes also have bounds on that randomness.

    This afternoon I was able to attend the presentation of "Re: Design" at the MIT Museum. It was a dramatization of the correspondence between Darwin and Asa Gray. It was very well done and will be posted on the web in streaming video soon. We'll get the website for that when it's available. There wasn't much that was new in the differences between them but it was helpful to see the nature of their interaction. One thing that struck me was the basis on which Darwin held onto his view of lack of purpose. It wasn't the underlying randomness of the variability as much as the outcome itself. Why were there variations--features, functions, organisms, etc.--that were clearly useless or unsuitable for survival? There would be no such examples if there were purpose. He seemed driven by the lack of perception of purpose of the end product rather than the process.

    In the neo-whatever world, we like to focus on the atomic structure and mechanisms. So we like to think about the random cosmic ray that induced a point mutation, or the random inducement of gene duplication, or whatever. Darwin however looked at the macroscopic world. In one quote he cited a bird swooping in to eat a gnat. Was it God's purposeful action that caused that particular bird to snatch that particular gnat at that particular time? In this vein, we all have a problem, whether ID or not. We usually strain in some way to ensure that while God works his will in every process, we certainly don't want him to be seen as having willed sin and evil or to be too closely related to causing specific suffering.

    Finally, lest this post get far too long, let me suggest that, as far as we know, there is no unique physical law in biological systems. That is, the evolutionary process does not require any alteration or addition to the fundamental forces of nature. The very same electromagnetic force, strong force, and weak force, in a grand graviational field, that underlies all other processes are the same as those in evolution. No additional fundamental law is involved. If we trust God to be able to carry out his will in any other process, how could we ever insist that God can only carry out his purpose in evolution if he deviates from that model?

    Randy

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Feb 17 20:42:28 2008