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

Heya Steve,

Timeaus has an affinity for design-based conceptions of biological
> evolution, and believes that ateleology is necessarily a part of a
> "Darwinian" theoretical framework. Thus he enthusiastically embraces the
> work of Michael Denton, whose law-based, typological conception of
> biological evolution is fundamentally distinct from this picture of
> "Darwinism." While I don't share the preferences of Timeaus or Denton, I
> find much of interest and value in their arguments and do not mean to
> disparage the views they hold. Unfortunately, in the course of arguing his
> case, Timeaus repeatedly attacked the value of evolutionary science, and
> created a portrait of Darwinian explanations that implies idiocy and
> foolishness on the part of those who hold such ideas to have explanatory
> power. In statements that could be quoted in textbooks as exemplars of
> hyperbole, he mocked evolutionary biology and clearly cited Denton as a
> source of scientific demolition of "Darwinist" explanation. The st!
>
> atements I have quoted here are not statements of agreement with Denton's
> vision of the cosmos -- I don't have a problem with that at all. The
> statements under consideration are claims that Denton has wrecked Darwinian
> explanation by showing that it doesn't work. And the statements are false.

Considering how much of Denton's case, particularly in that book, relies on
offering up a competing metaphysical framework to understand the data, I
don't see how you can arrive at a declaration of 'false'. Unconvincing to
you? Perhaps. Wrong on some science? Sure. But does Denton offer a superior
lens through which to understand and approach evolution, especially compared
to the reigning paradigm, and even while ceding that Denton's framework
isn't necessarily perfect? Frankly, I'd be surprised if you couldn't see
why some - many? - would think so.

As for what T implied, odd - I didn't pick up on any of that. It could be
that I've just missed it or forgotten it.

So I hope my readers will keep this in mind: Denton's book is a fairly
> effective articulation of a law-based design perspective. It is therefore
> incompatible with any view that denies purpose or direction in the cosmos,
> and in that sense it is a challenge to some views that are called
> "Darwinian." It is most certainly not a demolition of ANY competing view
> (whether or not that view can or should be called "Darwinism"), and that is
> the major point my review sought to make. In my opinion, Timaeus repeatedly
> claimed that Denton smashed his competition scientifically. And I'm saying
> that's nonsense. Nature's Destiny doesn't even attempt this, and the major
> points of ETC are spectacularly wrong, including at least one chapter that
> is worthy of official retraction.

T's already given his response to you regarding your reviews of Denton's
works, so I'll gladly let him speak on these points. I'll simply repeat that
quite a lot of this exchange ultimately came down to metaphysics rather than
debates over hard scientific facts. In that vein, count me as someone who
believes that the Darwinian metaphysic is - let's be nice here - not nearly
as defensible as teleological alternatives. However, I differ from T and
other ID proponents in some serious respects which I'll get to in a reply to
Timaeus later - but put simply, whereas they want to get their metaphysics
into the game of science (since materialists and atheists have so generously
packed their own into said game, unjustified and unwarranted), I simply want
all metaphysics out.

I hope this helps you understand why I consider your comments on "forms of
> Darwinism" below to be misconstruing everything I've said. It's probably my
> fault. I'm saying that Denton has not damaged evolutionary explanations.
> And I'm saying that merely embracing a teleological viewpoint (like that of
> Conway Morris) does not imply the abandonment of "Darwinism," because as
> long as the scare quotes remain we'll have room to claim the Darwinian
> mechanism without swallowing the Dawkins-Huxley religion. That's what
> Conway Morris does, and what Asa Gray did, and what Daniel Harrell does, and
> it just doesn't matter that Timaeus wants it another way. Conway Morris is
> unequivocal about the explanatory power of the Darwinian mechanism, while
> unabashedly pointing to something bigger that "guides" the evolutionary
> process. In other words, Conway Morris does not jettison Darwinian
> evolution -- he strongly affirms it. (In fact, he's something of a
> pan-adaptationist, and clearly takes!

Timaeus has replied to me, and made even more clear what I already
suspected: He sees the 'Darwin-Huxley religion' as part and parcel with
Darwinism. Remove the religion, and you no longer have Darwinism. That may
amound to swordplay over a definition, but as I tried to make clear - if you
go by that standard, then offering up an acceptable and teleological
metaphysical framework does amount to 'smashing Darwinism'. Ever since I
started following the ID debate, I have been fascinated at just how much
elasticity that word has, and how much difficulty it adds to these
conversations. But, what can one do.

  Dawkins' side against Gould in the "rewind the tape" scrum. Strange
> bedfellows indeed.) This tells me that Conway Morris, like me, is either
> too stupid to see the wisdom of Timeaus, or that he has simply rejected the
> assertion that Darwinian explanations entail the horrors of atheism.
> Whatever Denton demolished when he wrecked "the Darwinian mechanism," it
> wasn't consequential enough to stop one of the world's foremost evolutionary
> biologists from continuing to embrace that very mechanism WHILE AFFIRMING
> MUCH OF DENTON'S REAL PROJECT. Or maybe Conway Morris didn't get the memo...

Again, I think Timaeus has made clear how he views Darwinism, and what it
necessarily entails. Maybe you're both talking past each other. But to me,
it seems clear. Go figure.

You asked "Are we talking about the same ID advocates..."? First of all:
> interesting tone. Second, we weren't talking about ID advocates, we were
> talking about attacks on evolutionary science, in the context of repeated
> claims that a book author had completely undermined the "Darwinian
> mechanism." I'm quite well aware of the acknowledgement of common descent
> by some ID advocates. It's not relevant at all to my specific comments.
>

Interesting tone? I'm not going to be coy here - I was throwing your
terminology back at you, as lightly as possible. If it disturbs you, maybe
you'll see why I raised the complaint I did. I'd do the same thing over at
UD if they ever trotted out that obnoxious 'Thebrites' page again. But
again, do what you will.

And - yes, we were talking about ID advocates/proponents. That's exactly the
context to which I replied to you in - your speculating about why
Conway-Morris isn't more popular among them. My response was, I don't see
him talking about period, save for one somewhat middling to negative review
by Dembski. He's not disparaged. He just doesn't seem to be on their radar.
Honestly, I don't see him brought up much by TEs either.

Finally, I find your comments at the end to bafflingly unrelated to my
> positions and to my actual words. I'll assume they're aimed at someone
> else.
>
> Steve Matheson
>

I wasn't relating them to your position or your words. It was an aside about
this debate, and trends I see. At most it's an indication of one reason I
have sympathy for both ID in general, and a good amount of what Timaeus has
said in particular. It wasn't meant to be some kind of passive-aggressive
criticism - just adding to the conversation.

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 11:32:53 2008