RE: [asa] Rejoinder 10A from Timaeus: To Schwarzwald and Matheson

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Ted Davis
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 8:23 AM
To: asa@lists.calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] Rejoinder 10A from Timaeus: To Schwarzwald and Matheson

Timaeus wrote:
"The whole purpose of Darwinian explanation is to explain all species, including man, as the products of chance and natural selection, not design. To ask, “How do they know there isn’t design, in addition to chance and natural selection?”, is like asking: “Why can’t soccer players use their hands as well as their feet on the ball?” The answer is not that it’s impossible to manipulate the ball with one’s hands, or that the game would be inferior if players could use their hands; the answer is that soccer is defined as a game in which you can’t use your hands on the ball. One could invent a game with similar rules, but add in the use of hands. The point is that such a game wouldn’t be soccer. And Darwinian evolution, with design added to it as an additional cause, wouldn’t be “Darwinian” evolution. It would be some other kind of evolution."

My comment: It would be Theistic Evolution, or at least some form of it. In some ways I think Timaeus has valid points about the origin and continuing definition of Darwinism as used by scientists, and in some ways I continue to maintain that he is playing a definition game. On one hand, assuming Timaeus' point on "Darwinism", I don't understand why TEs would claim the title "Theistic Darwinists," though that seems to be where some of them fall. On the other hand, those who do are simply defining "Darwinism" as the synonym of "evolution" (without the metaphysical implications), and we are back to a definitional problem. Frankly, I can see both sides of this, but I think Timaeus and the IDists may have the upper hand in the argument.

Couldn't TEs just agree with Timaeus that they are talking about "some other kind of evolution" (i.e. Theistic Evolution), and couldn't IDs simply grant that this view of Theistic Evolution (i.e. not a "total naturalistic evolution") is compatible with a religious or "intelligent design" theory? If these agreements could be made, would the conflict between TE and ID greatly dimish, except for those in the YEC/ID camp?

Timaeus wrote further:
"But if there is design, then Darwinism is a false description of how nature works. Not false in every detail (there may still be natural selection operating, for example), but false in the sense that Darwin himself deemed most crucial. And my contention throughout this debate has been that TEs are only able to combine Christianity with Darwin to the extent that they have unconsciously relaxed the stipulation – the exclusion of design – that Darwin himself (and all his major interpreters up to Dawkins) considered to be central to the theory."

Those defenders of TE who have opposed Timaeus in this dialog, can you agree with the above statement - i.e., that TE is opposed to the metaphysical assumption (absence of design) that Darwin and his followers hold as a sacred distinction? And yet, I think Timaeus' statement above continues to hint at the conceptual difference this discussion has been plagued with all along. The theory of design (or the theory of non-design) is primarily a metaphysical assumption, not primarily a scientific fact or conclusion, though it's supported by some scientific observations and analysis.

Jon Tandy

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 10:37:53 2008