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

Thanks for the feedback -- very constructive.

On whether Timaeus' claim that Denton "rips the Darwinian mechanism to shreds," I find him to quite clear on his stance that Darwinism is a joke scientifically, and found the quote in question to be about that specifically. It is to these claims of Timaeus', in the quote and elsewhere, that I was responding. On whether Denton rejects the purposelessness of what Timaeus calls "Darwinism," I felt no need to address -- that's the whole point of Nature's Destiny.

On the reference to "forms of Darwinism" not abiding talk of the fitness of the environment or the meaning of convergence (which were the topics in that part of my review), I had in mind pan-adaptationism and any school of "Darwinism" that relies (or insists) on total naturalism. (Conway Morris calls such apologists "ultra-Darwinists" in a section called "Darwin's Priesthood.") The scare quotes were meant to communicate the fact that "Darwinism" is a term used for various purposes, and some uses will surely capture ideas or viewpoints that will recoil from the kind of questions and ideas that Denton and Conway Morris point to. I guess that's all I can say about that; there's no contradiction at all, as long as you see why I've put scare quotes around "Darwinism." And to David Opderbeck, yes I do think that Conway Morris is unquestionably a "Darwinist," as in someone who believes that adaptation is typically explained by selection acting on variation.

On the lack of references to Conway Morris: I'm wondering if he's less popular among ID proponents because he knows that the attacks on evolutionary science, levelled with gusto and abandon by Timaeus and like-minded advocates, are embarrassingly shallow and necessarily underinformed. Why didn't Conway Morris make any of Timaeus' pantheons? Maybe you should ask Timaeus that question.

On my rhetoric: I like Timaeus and we agree on some really basic and important things. My responses here deal with florid rhetoric and over-the-top statements that imply that only blinkered buffoons believe there is anything remotely plausible about Darwinian explanations. I thought I was nice enough, and I think that "chest-beating" is an apt description of Timaeus' extended comments on Denton. Your mileage may differ.

On what Denton's argument needs to accomplish: you're right that he doesn't need to refute one framework to establish the plausibility of his own. My remarks, however, come in a particular context. First, the repeated assertion by Timeaus that Denton has unmasked Darwinian explanation as "ludicrously improbable," with "almost no evidence in its favour," "mostly imagination and bluff." I tried to make it clear that this is a fantastic distortion of Nature's Destiny, and I will show that ETC is a complete failure in this regard as well. I tried to leave intact the metaphysical ideas and preferences of Denton and Timaeus. Second, I was writing in that paragraph about a tactic that I find potentially disingenuous: going on about the coolness and the details of a particular adaptation, as though those facts have anything to do with the validity of competing accounts of the development of the adaptation. It is those accounts that matter, and too much gushing about the glories of an avian lung can give the wrong impression. My opinion, anyway.

Steve

>>> Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> 11/16/08 9:07 PM >>>
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 23:05:48 2008