Can we parse out the various claims and arguments like this:
Science:
Denton: Not enough time +
Too much complexity +
Lack of sufficient empirical support (fossils,
genetics) =
Refutation of "Darwinian" evolution
Mainstream: Plenty of time +
Complexity is not irreducible +
Sufficient even if incomplete empirical support
(fossils, genetics) =
Strong support for "Darwinian" evolution
Metaphysics:
ID: Sovereign God = empirically observable non-stochastic patterns /
events
TE / classical theist: Sovereign God + "chance" = "appearance of
chance"
TE / open theist: Ontologically undetermined future = "chance" within
boundary conditions
TE / process theist: God and universe co-evolving = "chance"
Materialist: ontology = time + chance alone
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Steve Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu> wrote:
> 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.
>
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 13:33:25 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 17 2008 - 13:33:25 EST