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

As it happens, I have been involved in a private exchange with a prominent
grass roots ID proponent whom I will not name. This person believes that
Francis Collins' version of TE is highly materialistic, except for as
follows: "[Collins] is a materialist for everything but cosmological and
chemical evolution."

The following is clipped from my posts to this person:

As for "accidents," my own view is that many events in natural history
would be seen by a materialist as an "accident," but I would interpret them
differently. In his recent book, "God's Universe," Owen Gingerich puts it
thus: "Whether the mutation are anything other than mathematically random is
a question without an answer *in a physical or scientific sense.* But my
subjective, metaphysical view, that the universe would make more sense if a
divine will operated at this level to design the universe in a purposeful
way, can be neither denied nor proved by scientific means. It is a matter
of belief or ideology how we choose to think about the universe, and it will
make do difference how we do our science. One can *believe* that some of
the evolutionary pathways are so intricate and so complex as to be
hopelessly improbable by the rules of random chance, but if you do not
believe in divine action, then you simply have to say that random chance was
extremely lucky, because the outcome is there to see." (p. 101) That is the
best I can do, to answer directly your question about "accidents" and
evolution.

With regard to cosmic fine tuning, there is IMO a big difference between
trying to account for the nature of nature itself--this is what fine tuning
involves--and trying to account for living things, within the existing
universe that has already been given certain specific properties and powers.
 Or, at least that is how I see it. You might see it differently. Perhaps,
for you, the properties and powers that God gave matter when this universe
began (perhaps there were other, earlier universes, as there will in my
Christian understanding be at least one future universe) were not sufficient
to produce life, although obviously they were sufficient to sustain it or we
would have to live in a different universe! In any event, I see the origin
of our universe as completely beyond science, at least presently: how can we
know what other properties and powers God could have chosen to give matter?
We can know only those that he actually did give matter, and we can know
those of course only to a limited degree. The existence of anything at all,
and also the existence of this specific universe in which we live, is a
profound mystery and IMO a cornerstone of religious faith. I know Collins'
book, of course, and I also know him just a bit personally, and my sense is
that he would say the same thing that I just said, though I am reluctant to
speak for him.

When you say this:
"[Collins] is a materialist for everything but cosmological and chemical
evolution."

When you say this, I cannot at all agree with you, and I think the root
cause is a disagreement about what "materialism" means. The materialist, to
my thinking, is someone who believes that nature is all that there is;
whereas the theist thinks there is more than nature. Collins is absolutely
a theist, not a materialist, and where/how he understands the role of divine
agency is not relevant to classifying him implicitly as a materialist.
Suppose (say) Collins were not the head of the HGI. Suppose instead that he
were, like the Scottish scientist (and Christian) Sir John Houghton, in
charge of NOAA (Houghton was formerly head of the Meteorological Office in
the UK). If Collins had written a book about hurricanes and earthquakes,
instead of about genes and evolution, would you be suggesting that he is a
materialist in his understanding of the weather? As Gingerich puts it
above, science cannot prove purpose or its absence: that is a metaphysical
inference that goes beyond science. It makes more sense to Gingerich,
Collins, and me, that the universe is ultimately purposeful; it makes more
sense to Steven Weinberg, whose father died of Alzheimer's disease (which my
mother also has) and whose extended family suffered in the Holocaust, that
the universe is not purposeful. I just fail to see how molecular biology
can settle that difference of opinion.

You might as well say that, if you don't practice faith healing (ie, the
type promoted by some TV evangelists), that you are a materialist when it
comes to medicine, for everything (say) except the sanctity of life. That
would be just so misleading. I think it comes down to naturalism. If you
find MN generally acceptable, does that make you a "materialist"? I am
clearly saying, No, it does not, where I sense you suggesting "Yes," it
does. Is that where we really differ?

AND, I add this information in case any ASA members might be able to
attend:

I will be debating the question, "Is Nature all there is?" on the campus of
Oregon State University next month. The event will be Monday evening,
March 3, at 7 pm. I am breaking my policy of "no debates" in this instance,
b/c the format is much more likely to lead to mutual understanding than to
an exchange of body shots. It will be sponsored by this group:

http://oregonstate.edu/groups/socratic/

Please include this event in your prayer list,

Ted
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 18 10:56:15 2008