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

Heya Steve,

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.

I specifically pointed out just how intimately Timaeus views the connection
between the metaphysics of Darwin & co., and Darwinism as a scientific
theory - and argued how, if that perspective holds, then a successful
critique of the metaphysics or advancement of a competing and better
framework is damaging to Darwinism as a scientific theory. I put questions
of the specific and strictly 'scientific' mechanisms aside entirely - I did
not bother to engage them or defend them in either direction, so why you
think you're taking Timaeus seriously while I'm not is beyond me. T engaged
many points, even points with reference to Denton, that I didn't bother to
focus on here - and I don't think it's been a distortion to point out the
particular stress placed on the metaphysical, especially when so much of the
argument precisely comes down to what "Darwinism" actually comprises, even
as a scientific theory.

> 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.

And once again, my sole point on this subject has been that there is a
perspective in play where Darwinism and the metaphysics associated with
Darwin are one and the same. You can keep pulling those two things apart and
acting as if no one has made the connection (however correct or incorrect
they are to do so), and my response will be to keep pointing out how some do
view them as a single package deal - and that it's disingenuous to respond
to claims made with the viewpoint that they are a single and unified thing
with arguments that hinge on their being split.

Further, I've not said once that Denton, or even the metaphysical success of
Denton, 'falsifies Darwinism'. In fact I thought I made it clear that while
I have great sympathy for Timaeus, and for ID in general, I come at the
question from a decidedly opposite direction - I do think that mechanisms
and processes are utterly divorcable from metaphysics, and that the best way
to handle these problems is to get the metaphysics out rather than to let
other metaphysics compete. Granted, I also think that vastly better
metaphysics (multiple options, in fact) are available to replace the
standard 'Darwinist religion' fare.

As I said before, I think quite a lot of this argument comes down to
metaphysics, and the status of metaphysics within a scientific theory. The
result is a lot of nuance and a lot of confusion, along with intentional
shell-gaming (No, I am not accusing anyone in this discussion or on this
list of engaging in this). T has quoted Darwin to the effect that if design
is allowed into his model, it's no longer 'his' model because it cannot
abide this. There are two obvious ways to respond to that - point out that
Darwin was intimately connecting his metaphysics to his science, point out
he was wrong to do so, and slice off the metaphysical claims and call the
result Darwinism (despite it going against Darwin's own understanding of the
theory he was putting forth, as well as the apparent understandings of
prominent biologists). This is the route I recommend, and I think
'Darwinism' can survive it and be better for it - but that this seemingly
goes against Darwin's own view should be pointed out. The alternative is to
let that package stand, and tie Darwinism as a scientific theory to the
metaphysics - but this has some far-reaching and, in my view, undesirable
results. I won't rehash them here - I think some of them have been made
clear, and others can just imagine what goes on if this is allowed to stand.

A side comment to end on: If the latter really is undesirable, it's worth
wondering if the common communication of Darwinism/evolution typically
operates under the metaphysics-free rule set, or the metaphysics-full rule
set. And if the latter, maybe those annoying and persistent critics of
'Darwinism' have some valid points that even TEs like myself should be
sympathetic to.

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 20:22:56 2008