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

Is Simon Conway Morris' perspective "Darwinist?"

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 21:52:47 2008