Re: [asa] Results of Cameron's Survey

In asking people on this list to address “the capability of Darwinian processes,” Cameron Wybrow proposed the following survey question to ASA:   “Let us take a look at three broad speculative explanations for the reptile-mammal transition:   1. Reptiles became mammals by purely stochastic processes; there was no design in the appearance of any mutation, and God did not lift a pinky (other than to sustain the laws of nature) during the whole process. 2. Reptiles became mammals by a deterministic, front-loaded process; there was inbuilt design regarding at least the main thrust of the process, but beyond inserting that inbuilt design (at the beginning of life, or perhaps even at the beginning of the universe), God did not lift a pinky (other than to sustain the laws of nature) during the whole process. 3. God (or space aliens, if you prefer) steered the alterations of the genomes of reptiles until they became mammals, actually causing nature to produce *what it otherwise would never have produced*. (Note that this answer does not entirely exclude elements of stochastic and deterministic processes, but subordinates them to, or coordinates them with, a guiding hand, and is not in the slightest degree embarrassed to use the word "guidance".)    Cameron's survey question to ASA, for which this thread is compiling the results: "Which of the three scenarios above is the one that -- in your own personal view -- *actually happened*?"”   Responses to this question thus far: Schwarzwald: "I'd have to answer #2 or #3"   Dave Wallace: "place me in category 3."   Cameron: "I opt for #2 or #3."   Gregory: #2 or #3.   Terry added #4: "4. God steered the alterations of the genomes of reptiles until they became mammals in a way that is indistinguishable from it occurring via purely stochastic processes."   George Murphy: “You can put me down with Terry's #4. (Or, if only the 3 answers given originally are allowed, as is usually the case with standardized tests, I'll take #3 "under protest.") I would not absolutely rule out the idea of front-loading of design (#2)…”   Don Winterstein: “As a gardener I choose the garden model, which would be close to #3.”   David Campbell: “4 is rather closer to the mark.”   What about the other ASAers?! (e.g. Iain Strachan, who contributed to the thread)   ~ My interpretation of the results so far, using quotations:   David Campbell however noted: “Another problem in interpreting my position is that I often try to note a range of viable possibilities, rather than specifically my view.”   In this thread, Cameron was specifically asking for a ‘personal view.’   David Campbell continued in a later post, more specifically with his view: “My position would indeed be compatible with much of the more theoretical ID, but it is incompatible with insisting on attacking evolution.”   David C. continued: “My own position is that everything is determined according to God's design. However, I see neither reason to expect God to not use physical laws in the reptile-mammal transition nor evidence that He didn't. As far as I can tell, God steered the process using natural laws.”   To which Cameron responded, saying that David C. employs “a blurry distinction between "guided" and "natural" events, and it is the blurring of that distinction which makes your position possible.”   Thus, in responding to the idea that ‘God steers’ nature, Bill Powers asked to Terry Gray: “Your fourth option is just a subset of the third. Is it not?”   Terry has not yet responded.   Cameron has made clear that some TEs are advocating a #3-that-looks-like-#1 scenario, but that “Darwin did not envision [a] special #3-that-looks-like-#1.” Thus, the implication is that those TEs are not ‘Darwinists’ in a strict sense of the term. The TEs may agree with this in principle, but they are apparently not doing much to distance themselves from certain aspects of Darwin’s ideas and/or his contribution to science, perhaps because, as Cameron suggested, they don’t want to appear as being ‘anti-evolutionary’ (read: ‘creationists’) in America. In fact, however, they could come out strongly against *certain aspects* of Darwinian evolution, which it seems is what Cameron is hinting at, and as IDs (such as Denton and Behe) are successfully doing, without being called ‘anti-evolutionary.’   One of Cameron’s main points is that “Darwinism (as opposed to simply "evolution")…cannot be compatible with orthodox theology.” TEs either don’t seem to say much about this or their definition of ‘Darwinism’ is different than Cameron’s, thus allowing for even the possibility of a Christian Darwinism (!), which Cameron and myself and many others on this list believe is a false (read: impossible) pair.   Cameron also wrote: “"Christian Marxism" is nonsense, though "Christian socialism" is not. Similarly, "Theistic Darwinism" is nonsense, though "theistic evolution" is not.”   Earlier, in the preceding thread ‘The term Darwinism’ from which Cameron’s survey branched off, he made clear his position: “More generally, "theistic evolution" is not an objectionable term for me. Nor would it be an objectionable term for ID advocates such as Michael Behe or Denyse O'Leary, were it not for the fact that many TEs insist on full-blown *Darwinian* evolution as an irrefutable fact of science, and the fact that many TEs rule out design detection in principle.” – Cameron   So, is accepting position #3 or #4 consistent with *not* insisting on “full-blown *Darwinian* evolution”?   Further, Cameron clarified his question as follows: “The question is, I repeat: *Does God need to do anything other than his ordinary divine action (which sustains nature) in order for macroevolution to occur?* If your answer is "No", you should be picking #1 or #2. If your answer is "Yes", you should be picking #3.”   “If both ID and TE people in fact believe that evolution is a *guided* process, and that it would not happen under the "ordinary" action of God, without some extraordinary prompting, then it is important to establish that.” – Cameron   Has Cameron’s survey at least established that?   Gregory __________________________________________________________________ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 2 08:07:13 2009