RE: [asa] O'Leary's nonsense

What is the initial condition on which the "mechanism" of natural selection acting on random variation gives rise to complexity accompanied by speciation? How can we establish that experimentally? Can we go all the way back to the Big Bang? Why do we need any notion of God if we can provide answers to all these questions? Is God only needed to provide the initial condition and the rest follows since He ordained it? Is that theism or deism?

 
Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Stephen Matheson
Sent: Mon 6/30/2008 5:09 PM
To: David Opderbeck
Cc: ASA list
Subject: Re: [asa] O'Leary's nonsense

I think Thomas Cudworth has been pretty reasonable in the discussion, if you
ignore the ubiquitous culture-war casualty reports. David correctly identifies
errors, but my hope in the discussion is that many of us will be better able to
understand each other. I think I've learned a few things about the ID mindset
(or at least the UD mindset) in my week or so on UD, and it's been helpful to
me. Whether people seem "dense" or not, Thomas is one UD'er who deserves
credit for behaving decently. StephenB, sadly, could not contain his contempt
for those who reject his mindset. Like I said to him: that's not my problem.

The paragraph in which I explain why I think it's easy to separate "Darwinism"
from Darwin's scientific explanation is here:

To summarize my own position: Darwin's "mechanism" was natural selection
acting on random variation. Darwin, without any scientific or metaphysical
support, added non-teleology to his mechanism, and the result is something that
you and I seem to agree to call "Darwinism." Christians, we agree, can't
embrace that thing we're calling "Darwinism." (Non-Christians, even
non-theists, might choose to reject "Darwinism" for the same reasons,
namely that it incorporates unjustified metaphysical pronouncements that
don't add explanatory force.) But since Darwin added his metaphysical
proviso without justification, and since the proviso does no explanatory work,
it can (and should) be removed as unceremoniously as it was added. The
consequences of this move are of course not trivial, but the move itself is
completely trivial.

(The excerpt comes from comment #76 in the thread at UD that is under
discussion.)

It's sad that, when discussing design and Christian ideas in the vicinity, one
must spend at least half of one's keystrokes carefully dismantling the semantic
trap inherent in the much-abused term "Darwinism." But there it is: my attempt
to unbait the trap. I'd appreciate comments, as well as suggestions for an
alternative term. (In comment #65, I suggested "Grayist" but also noted that I
wasn't sure anyone would get it.)

Steve Matheson

>>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 06/30/08 4:14 PM >>>
For lots of people, I guess, teleology in biology is at the level of primary
causation, in the mind of God, which is hidden to man absent special
revelation. One can debate whether that's the only place teleology can
empirically be identified with respect to biology, but the Cudworth
statement you reproduce below seems bereft of any ability to separate the
metaphysical from the physical and plays the silly language game of
insisting that his interlocutor can't define his own terms. The guy just
seems dense.

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> Yes, I think you're right on being fair, David. Steve's non-Darwinism,
> however, is still quite mysterious, at least to me. Why? Well, he's
> a biologist at Calvin College. Don't biologists at Calvin College accept
the
> scientific contribution of Charles Darwin to biology and other natural
> sciences? If so, then doesn't it make he and them at least in some
> significant ways, Darwinians? If not, then could you or he please spell
> out what a non-Darwinian position in biology looks like (or may look like)
> in the contemporary academy?
>
>
>
> Let me include a reflexive component for the purpose of adding
> context. Personally, I don't accept every part of Max Weber's
> sociological contribution. Some things, yes, other things no. If you want
to
> discuss this, then I should be ready to explain myself, including what I
> don't accept in the Weberian canon. Yet, I have little problem calling
> myself a Weberian sociologist or sociologist in the Weberian tradition. In
> other words, I am Weberian before I am Durkheimian or Marxist (sometimes a
> field has multiple founders or key figures).
>
>
>
> In the referred thread (there are actually 2 threads at UD referenced)
>
> "The problem is, that TEs use the language of teleology (purposeful
> evolution) while arguing on behalf of non-teleology (Darwinian evolution)."
> - Thomas Cudworth
>
>
>
> "For my part as a Christian evolutionist, I'll gladly make the statement
> you call for: Darwin was indeed "partly wrong" about the "mechanism of
> evolution," because he insisted on ateleology, with neither scientific nor
> metaphysical justification." - Steve Matheson
>
>
>
> Steve admits that Darwin was 'partly wrong,' specifically wrt ateleology. I
> suspect that Thomas' challenge, which I share, is for the positive side to
> take effect; showing how Darwin's wrong-ness was/is improved
> upon today! Where is the teleological evololution to be found in the field
> of contemporary biology? Who speaks up for it in order to overthrow the
> ateleological evolution of Darwin and many others? Some at ASA have
> suggested trying to make 'teleological evolution' a mainstream pov, but
> their efforts seem (to this outsider) to have made little to no impact;
> biologists actually have not imported teleological language. Please proove
> me wrong here if possible! Perhaps Steve is helping to insist on (the
> relevance of) teleology in natural science? Surely the PoS's would write
> about it.
>
>
>
> Let's clarify a key difference then between TE and Darwinism, if there
> indeed is one. Survey question: Does anyone at ASA who would claim to be a
> TE, likewise reject the label 'Darwinist'? If so, in what sense and to what
> extent? It should actually be easy to clear the air for those attracted to
> features of 'intelligent design' theory to understand that TE does not
equal
> Darwinist! Or do TEs prefer not to make such a distinction, but just to
> silently assent to the Darwinian implication (biologist or evolutionist
> inevitably equals Darwinist)? Now that Steve has visited and argued calmly
> there, perhaps one or some from UD would come to ASA to discuss this stuff
> here...
>
>
>
> It should be amply clear to everyone that Darwinists who are non-theists
> (e.g. agnostics or atheists) are usually not shy to express their
> non-theistic or even anti-theistic perspectives. Why not the other way
> around too? It's more than a language game, though all 'camps' are heavily
> invested (perhaps especially IDists today) in some concepts or proper names
> rather than others. This, after all, has a communicative purpose!
>
>
>
> G. Arago
>
>
>
>
> --- On *Mon, 6/30/08, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] O'Leary's nonsense
> Received: Monday, June 30, 2008, 9:59 PM
>
> Greg, in fairness to Steve M., I think he did address that on UD. He said
> a couple of times that if "Darwinism" means "metaphysically
a-teleological,"
> then he's not a "Darwinist," because he's a "pretty good Calvinist." But
> most of the responders didn't seem to want to take Steve at his word, and
> insisted that "TE" must mean "Darwinist" which must mean "metaphysically
> a-teleological." It's just a silly language game these folks wanted to
play
> with Steve, IMHO -- either that or they think he's just lying, waiting for
> the opportunity to throw of the cloak of Calvinism and admit he believes in
> Gaia rather than God.
>
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The label 'Christian Darwinist' seems legitimate (and paradoxical) also,
>> yet Stephen Matheson seems not to have discussed it there. Most TEs and
>> ECs here likely would prefer not to carry such a label, even if not
prepared
>> or willing to say exactly how they are non-Darwinian. This was a
significant
>> point contra TE in the UD thread. It is the tendency to universalise (e.g.
>> to idolise, like ultra-Darwinists do) evolution (into evolutionism) that I
>> oppose in my field. When TE is not theistic evolution-ism, it seems much
>> easier to defend.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregory
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Yahoo! Canada Toolbar :* Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark
> your favourite sites. Download it now! <http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/>
>

--
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.