Re: [asa] O'Leary's nonsense

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Mon Jun 30 2008 - 20:13:52 EDT

I think that you overestimate the power of science to provide answers. :-)

One of the difficulties of some of these discussions is the inclination to sometimes conflate the questions of ultimate origins with questions regarding in-flight trajectories of evolutionary processes. For purposes of most of these discussions, it is helpful to recognize that the origin question(s) origins and the trajectory(ies) of evolutionary processes are separable. Though they are connected in a continuum in reality, the questions about the two appear to be quite different. It seems to me that the introduction of "initial condition" into a natural selection question is one such conflation.

One certainly might take a deistic set-and-forget perspective. But it is not by any means a must in an evolutionary life scenario. T here is that there is no need for an either-or answer. There is a whole spectrum of models spanning the gap between true deism to non-evolutionary theism.

One might indeed conclude that the unfolding of the universe, including its natural processes and consequences, progresses according to plan and without intervention because the plan (including its initial conditions and boundary conditions) was sufficient to accomplish the intent of God with respect to physical aspects. But even this view does not require a deistic set-and-forget understanding.

It could be, for example, a plant and wait scenario that is in play, awaiting the time when awareness and creativity and communication (etc.) manifest themselves and become of increased divine interest. In other words, the physical world is just a canvas, and so requires no particular attention. Or maybe it is more like a culture medium, needing no attention, but hosting the processes leading to what is really of interest.

Or perhaps a plant and prune scenario was in play. That could proceed in at least two ways, (1) with active pruning going on, gently shaping, or (2) the "pruning" could be implemented -- all or in part -- by implementing "algorithms" in the original plan (through initial conditions and/or boundary conditions) such that natural selection per se (pruning) was an intentional component emerging at a certain stage of the unfolding of Creation.

There's lots of flexibility here as to where and to what extent the Creator wishes to intervene to alter the trajectory of some aspect of His Creation.

Shifting gears a bit, there seems to be no real problem with folks of all stripes acknowledging this thing that has come to be named micro-evolution. Limiting time (to say 10,000 years) is a way of conceptually limiting the progress of evolution to some desired extent. That shifts the focus to the time scale. If it is really long, it's a problem, because the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is just scale, related to the passage of time. But the difference is underestimated pretty badly, I think. I haven't heard the parallel drawn with compounding interest, a more familiar concept. But it seems to me that the evolutionary process is much more like compounding interest some sort of linear model. If you pick virtually any percentage of change in say 6000 years, I think the percentage when compounded to the hospitable portion of the Earth's life is likely to be a pretty big number.

OK, I wandered off the subject a bit, but in any case,
that's how it seemeth to me. 

JimA [Friend of ASA]




Alexanian, Moorad wrote:

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.


  

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. Received on Mon Jun 30 20:14:18 2008