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

Heya Steve,

 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.
>

The problem I'm having here is that, given what Timaeus has said, the line
between the metaphysical/philosophical and scientific is blurry - in fact,
it seems to be downright central to this whole 'TE v ID' divide, as more
than once Timaeus has said that you can't divorce the
metaphysical/philosophical presumptions of Darwin, Gould, and others from
the scientific theory itself. I disagree with him on that entirely. But
particularly for people who haven't been following this long, long exchange
on ASA, the natural conclusion to draw is something vastly different than
what Timaeus, it seems to me, has argued.

Let me reiterate: If Timaeus' position is truly that darwinism is
necessarily entwined with not just neutrality on the question of design or
teleology but out and out rejection, then Denton, Conway-Morris, and others
have powerful objections to the science *given the framework he's operating
under* and *given that they can powerfully argue their metaphysics are as
good as or is superior to* the other metaphysical frameworks supposed based
on what the science illuminates. I don't want to speak too much for T here -
clearly he's more than capable of explaining himself. But as someone who's
been silently following this exchange, something just seems wrong with this
depiction.

> 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.
>

But this just bolsters the problem. Already T has insisted that Darwinism as
a scientific theory cannot be divorced from the philosophical and
metaphysical baggage so many have foisted upon it, including Darwin himself.
Now you're talking about 'ultra-Darwinists' and naturalists who have a
similar view of "Darwinism" in play. Yet no point or argument Denton or
others can make challenges "Darwinism", because - somehow - the only way to
challenge a synthesis of science and philosophy/metaphysics is by
challenging the science. In which case, ID is a wildly successful concept
because not a single scientific discovery has challenged the ID metaphysical
position, and any objections to the metaphysical position are not scientific
and therefore can be ignored. Funny how that works.

> 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.
>

Are we talking about the same ID advocates, some of whom (and a growing
number) accept evolutionary science in its entirety, but question the
philosophical baggage so often added on - or frankly, shoehorned into - the
paradigm? The ID advocates where some, even among the more prominent ones,
argue that naturally unfolding processes may sufficiently describe
biological (and other) history via front-loaded planning or otherwise?
There's some shallow and underinformed claims on display here, that much
I'll grant.

> 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.
>

I stand by my response, particularly when you at first refused to engage
Timaeus based on rhetoric, if I recall correctly. And I criticize ID
proponents the times I do think they cross the line on these and other
issues. If you think the rhetoric is conducive to really examining these
things, so be it.

> 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.
>

At this point I'll just hope that Timaeus chimes in with a response to what
you've said here - I'd love to see that. I've already talked about what's
going on when critiques of Darwinism are offered, and how attention should
be paid to what 'Darwinism' means to a particular person, since you're
well-aware of the various 'forms' Darwinism takes, depending on context and
who's discussing it.

I will add this: I've noticed a pattern when discussing evolution/darwinism,
principally among Dawkins-style New Atheist defenders, but also something
that pops up with TEs and even ID proponents at times.

Darwinism is defined as a purely scientific theory of evolutionary
biological development and adaptation via various mechanisms and processes.
Many of the processes and mechanisms are discussed and argued about, with
competing viewpoints. But Darwinism is referred to as true, because there is
some core agreement among all parties - usually it amounts to 'there is
change, development, and selection over time, which leads to
diversification'. Important, but minimal.

Then the philosophical and metaphysical baggage is piled on top of all these
things, complete with talk of how evolution is unguided, without purpose,
fundamentally based on chance of differing strengths (such as Gould's 'if
you would replay it, everything would turn out different'), indicates a lack
of a designer, etc. Utterly extraneous to the science, and certainly not
justified by it. What's the resulting combination called? Unsurprisingly,
still 'Darwinism'.

But then something interesting happens. Challenge the metaphysical and
philosophical end and you're either accused of in-effect challenging the
science (because clearly you're encouraging the science to be denied if you
challenge the metaphysical/philosophical and entirely extraneous baggage)
or, if you put up too much of a fight, you're told that the metaphysics
don't matter anyway - only the science does, so please talk about that. But
if you so much as express skepticism of the scientific aspect, then you're
either a fool or a liar, and clearly motivated by your metaphysics.

The result is that one particular set of metaphysics ('unguided,
purposeless, atelic') is treated as the default viewpoint. But somehow, you
can't challenge the metaphysics on metaphysical grounds because if both
explanations fit the science, the default is assumed to win (no matter how
increasingly awkward it looks) and the discussion is written off as
valueless. Press the issue too hard, and clearly you're hijacking science
for metaphysical goals, and are under suspicion of questioning the science.
Actually question the science and you're well on your way to getting
labeled.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 17 02:22:18 2008