Schwarzwald, please look more carefully at what I wrote in the first paragraph quoted below. I assert that some statements are false. Those statements are the claims, by Timaeus, that Michael Denton has bulldozed the "Darwinian mechanism." You responded as though I had asserted that all of Michael Denton's claims are false. I'm confused by this profound misunderstanding. Let me try one last time to make this clear.
I maintain that Timaeus claimed repeatedly that Denton had SCIENTIFICALLY undermined the explanatory power of "the Darwinian mechanism." I thought Timaeus was rather clear on this, and my rereading of the context has reinforced this opinion of mine. Moreover, I provided a specific quote in which Timaeus also seemed to claim that Denton had done this in Nature's Destiny. You seem to have at least two objections to my claim. First, you claim to doubt that Timaeus ever said these things. I'll be happy to provide further citations of his words. Second, you seem to think that Timaeus' well-known assertion regarding the essential nature of ateleology in "Darwinism" means that everything he said about Denton can be understood as nothing more than affirmation of Denton's metaphysical framework. I disagree, and I think I'm taking Timaeus' words more seriously than you are. Here is a quote from Rejoinder 3B to David Opderbeck, from 30 September:
"I am not talking about metaphysics, theology, or religion. I am saying that the Darwinian mechanisms are insufficient causally, in the limited, scientific sense of "cause" which Darwinists and TEs allow. I am saying they cannot produce complex organs, systems, etc. Or, at the very least, that they have not been proved capable of doing so, not by a long shot. It has nothing to do with metaphysics. I am saying, bluntly, that Darwinism is poor science, because it is weakly supported science."
I'm sorry Schwarzwald, but I think Timaeus was being pretty clear. He thinks "Darwinian mechanisms" are a joke, SCIENTIFICALLY, he is insistent that this has NOTHING TO DO with metaphysics, and he cites Denton as his source. Let's take Timaeus a little more seriously, and let's acknowledge that others besides you have carefully followed this conversation and reached some divergent conclusions.
Alternatively, perhaps you believe that the articulation of one viewpoint amounts to the refutation of competing viewpoints. I don't.
Let me try an illustration. I see The God Delusion as a poor-quality articulation of a viewpoint. I disagree with the viewpoint, but would not be inclined to label it as "false." On the other hand, the book is a laughable failure in its role as a "refutation" of belief. We can all agree, I think, that The God Delusion contains effective refutation of some things (i.e., some forms of belief), but no one should take seriously any claim that Dawkins has shredded faith. Nature's Destiny (and, as I'll claim elsewhere, ETC) should be viewed in this way. Embracing teleology doesn't falsify "Darwinism" or, especially, the "Darwinian mechanism," any more than embracing atheism falsifies faith. To reiterate, for the last time, I have no criticism for those who would choose to embrace the teleological vision of Denton or Conway Morris. I am addressing the specific claim that Denton or anyone else has undermined the scientific explanatory efficacy of the "Darwinian mechanism" as !
Timaeus himself has circumscribed it. And, again for the last time, the assertion that cosmic teleology entails the falsification of "the Darwinian mechanism" finds its refutation in the work of Conway Morris. The only way to rescue that assertion is to define "the Darwinian mechanism" as a metaphysical creed, which is neither worthy of any further consideration nor, according to Timaeus himself, what was intended by the statements in question.
Thanks for the useful and constructive critique; I will let you have the last word.
Steve Matheson
>>> Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com> 11/17/08 11:32 AM >>>
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 13:17:54 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 17 2008 - 13:17:54 EST