Re: [asa] Comments on Nature's Destiny by Denton

Heya Steve,

Just a few observations I want to make here - hopefully Timaeus will offer
up his own response to this review.

Reading Timaeus' characterizations, one might reasonably suppose that
> Michael
> Denton has written books that demolish "Darwinian evolution," in ways not
> seen
> before and not answered (or answerable) by evolutionary biologists.
> Timaeus
> asserts, for example, that Denton "rips the Darwinian mechanism to shreds,
> armed with thousands of references to the latest knowledge in biochemistry,
> genetics, embryology, physiology, comparative anatomy, etc." And that
> quote
> clearly refers to Nature's Destiny.

One problem: An ongoing theme in Timaeus' posts has been argument over just
what 'darwinian evolution' is - and rightly or wrongly, Timaeus has stressed
that a point of paramount concern for him is that being unguided and
purpose-absent is essential to the darwinian theory. I also recall him
arguing against the need for special creation or direct interventions for ID
to be valid, he's supported 'front-loading', and has argued that the latter
fits under a ID perspective.

So what Timaeus is arguing when he says that Denton "rips the Darwinian
mechanism to shreds" right off the bat implies a difference from what a YEC,
or RTB advocate, or others would necessarily mean.

It may be that some forms of "Darwinism" cannot abide such talk, but those
> who
> think that consideration of nature's "eerie perfection" is somehow
> "anti-Darwinian" should read Simon Conway Morris.

So, some forms of "Darwinism" (there are multiple forms of it?) can't abide
such talk, but the ideas - possibly the scientific discoveries themselves? -
still aren't anti-darwinian. This seems like a contradiction. If "some forms
of darwinism cannot abide such talk", then insofar as those forms go... yes,
the data and ideas would be anti-darwinian. It could and should be qualified
that this doesn't apply to all "forms of Darwinism", but if there's a
multitude of darwinian viewpoints here, then suddenly a whole lot of the ID,
not to mention TE, perspective may in fact become very pertinent.

> In fact, Conway Morris'
> Life's Solution is the book that every ID proponent should read after
> reading
> Nature's Destiny. Conway Morris' project overlaps with Denton's in obvious
> ways, and Conway Morris cites Denton twice, approvingly. But one never
> hears
> an ID propagandist brag that Conway Morris has "shredded the Darwinian
> mechanism." This, to me, is telling.

Okay - why? In my experience, Conway Morris tends not to be commented on
much at all in ID circles, aside from Dembski's

often lack this wisdom.) For this reason, it felt somewhat strange to read
> the
> book after seeing Timaeus' chest-beating.

I'll only say this once: For someone who, if I recall, refused to even
engage with Timaeus at first on account of the sort of language he used
which you viewed as not conducive to conversation, you make ample use of
loaded words and, frankly, insults. For whatever his faults, Behe (for
example) has always come across to me as calm and gracious when dealing with
his critics. I wish more of his critics could manage the same. And I don't
say this as someone convinced by Behe's case.

aside, these narratives are entertaining, educational and even inspiring.
> But
> they cannot take the place of the argument that needs to be made, namely
> the
> argument that adaptations, however spectacular or wonderful, are
> inexplicable
> outside of the preferred metaphysical framework. Denton overplays his hand
> in

But that's not what the argument needs to accomplish. Denton may pursue such
a line himself, but if the data is able to fit inside of his own
metaphysical framework among others, then the issue shifts to one of
competing metaphysics and questions of where people may think is the
superior perspective - another argument, to be sure. But the fact that
Denton (and other ID proponents) are capable of putting their own
metaphysics in the running with regards to mainstream science is an
accomplishment all its own. Again, the strongest line that Timaeus drew in
the sand is (in my view) a philosophical and metaphysical one to begin
with.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 16 21:08:17 2008