Re: [asa] The term Darwinism

Cameron has shown in this thread, in cooperation with many other voices now and in the past, that ‘Darwinism’ is *not* equivalent with ‘evolutionary biology.’ It is thus possible to accept certain features of ‘evolutionary biology’ without accepting ‘Darwinism.’ What this means is that ‘Darwinism’ could fall as an ideology without 'evolutionary biology' necessarily falling along with it. The example of Michael Denton has been repeated as an alternative to Darwin’s view of evolution in evolutionary biology, but also Steven J. Gould’s non-gradualist perspective is seen as a non-Darwinian approach. Why aren't people using the terms Dentonian or Gouldian?   In a review of Denton’s book ”Nature’s Destiny, retired biologist Gert Korthof wrote the following: “Is Denton a Darwinist ? Above we saw that Denton accepted that organisms are genetically linked (common descent). In that sense he is an evolutionist and a Darwinist. However, in so far [as] Denton accepts directed evolution, and in so far[as]he accepts that the course of evolution is preprogrammed, and in so far [as] he accepts Sheldrake-forces (p365), and in so far [as] he defends foresight in evolution (p362), he rejects neo-Darwinism.”  (http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm)   What seems needed to encourage rapprochement between TEs and IDs is 1) a list of things that both parties agree on about Darwin’s positive contribution to natural-physical sciences (we can assume for the time being, that Darwin didn’t contribute to human-social sciences or that his contribution is not important to the discussion currently engaged here) and also about what his ‘errors’ or ‘mistakes’ or ‘shortcomings’ were. Kurthof is yet another example of an evolutionary scientist flat out admitting that Darwin was sometimes wrong. In addition, they should outline 2) aspects of evolutionary biology that have surpassed Darwin’s views. Doing this would pave the way for a clarification of ‘Darwinism’ so that TEs and IDs don’t have to talk past each other as often. I doubt that the Discovery Institute would agree to do this; would some people at ASA?   Perhaps this task (stating the goods and bads of Darwin’s 19th century scientific contribution) would be left up to Cameron on this list, along with a few others, because TEs and ECs seem to accept many, most, if not almost *all* aspects of Darwin’s scientific ideas. Cameron rejects some features of (neo)-Darwinism as ‘bad science’ or as 'science influenced by worldview,' if I understand him. He has repeatedly asked for complete scientific references about macroevolution and has not been answered on this list. This may be because there are comparatively fewer biologists on this list than ‘other’ kinds of scientists. David Campbell, Stephen Matheson, Denis Venema, along with Iain Strachan could use their voices in this regard. Other than vested interests in their home field, I don't see why they wouldn't offer more introspectively, just as D. Alchin has in "Celebrating Darwin's Errors." To his credit, David has sometimes made offerings
 contra-Darwin.   But I haven’t heard Denis say anything about Darwin that would lead to the conclusion that he does not embrace ‘Darwinism’ and support it in spirit, even if the vast majority of Darwinists are either not-religious or anti-religious. Only if more biologists who are religious back away from the linguistic use of ‘Darwinism’ (as Cameron and the IDM define it) could rapprochement between TE/EC and ID become possible. There are non-religious biologists who have already backed away from ‘Darwinism’ and ‘neo-Darwinism,’ e.g. Lynn Margulis. Why aren’t Christian biologists quite as brave or cutting edge on this topic?   “I believe that Darwinian explanation is mostly speculation, ad hoc non-mathematical reasoning, and bluff.” – Cameron   Can he afford to say this only because he is not a biologist or natural scientist? Or because he is not an American? Cameron is saying that Darwin’s gradualist language is incomprehensive. There simply *is* non-gradualist organic change. Do any TEs disagree with this?   If Denton and his followers succeed, writes Cameron, “then the Darwinian hypothesis, which was always at best clunky, mechanical, 19th-century, and improbable, will be rendered obsolete.”   For biologists on this ListServe: is the prospect of Darwinism becoming obsolete something you can possibly imagine, even as a science fiction-futurist point of view?   “those of us suspicious of Darwinism have long suspected -- that Darwinism is believed in for more than scientific reasons.  It fulfills some sort of emotional or aesthetic need for modern man, and is not easily given up” – Cameron   Thos who defend the position Darwinism = evolutionary biology reject the ‘more than scientific reasons’ language. They are acting like Moorad views ‘purely physical devices.’ In other words, they are trying to be ‘completely objective’ for good reasons. Unfortunately what happens is that their views are dispiriting because they dehumanize the realm of science. Science in their view ‘just is’ and they forget or underemphasize that it ‘just is *for us*.’ Their definition of ‘science’ is far too narrow in our age where there are many sciences and academic fields that do not abide by their pseudo-universal ‘methodology.’   Doug Hayworth wrote: “But none of us on this list need convincing about the possibility of intelligent design. We all believe in a creator who designed the creation. We just disagree about whether the idea of intelligent design helps explain anything scientifically (except for the basic anthropic principle that provides us with a reason to believe that the structure of the universe is rational enough to enable us to do science).”   It is something important toward rapprochement to say that one believes that nature is designed. This belief can be used to unite science, philosophy and theology in fruitful dialogue. By refusing to allow ‘design’ or ‘intelligent design’ as ‘scientific’ concepts, it is similar to believing that some causes and effects are not amenable to ‘scientific’ study. On the one hand, it sets limits on what ‘science’ can achieve and do. On the other, it invites philosophers and others who are integral thinkers to become involved in understanding things that scientists don’t and even *can’t*, according to their methodologies.   Do ‘anthropic principles’ qualify under the class ‘scientific,’ Doug – what do you think? Or are they philosophies playing their role in dialogue with science and theology?   What happens time and again is Darwinists (and also often naturalistic evolutionists too) claim to hold the high ground based on science and not on philosophy or worldview. They think that science trumps other forms of knowledge (from my experiences and readings in Russia, one of the homes of ‘scientific atheism’ in the 20th century, surely you can imagine that this is an easily relevant topic in the ‘science, philosophy and religion’ conversation in Russia today). As someone who focuses sociologically on communication, it has become rather easy for me to point this out, e.g. when people argue that this or that is ‘about science’ or that something may or may not ‘help science,’  as if science is the end of the road in terms of legitimate knowledge. Even here on this list, it is not uncommon to read views that verge on ‘scientism,’ though everyone here is ready with a (token) rejection of ‘scientism’ as ideology. The safeguarding
 of something uniform, united and methodologically pure and un-subjective about ‘science’ is common fare among natural-physical scientists, religious or not.   I *know* that people design things because I’ve watched them/us designing things. It is a leap, however, to say that biology looks ‘designed’ too. But even Richard Dawkins has admitted it!   “Whereas from the ID perspective, just as the architect's design for a building is *essential* to the explanation [of] how the building came into being, so design is essential to explaining why the structures of life are the way they are.” – Cameron   This speaks to the issue of Aristotelian causality being accepted or rejected by evolutionary scientists and other modern scientists today (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/). Darwinists tend to focus either mainly or exclusively on material and efficient causes in their ‘scientific’ work. On the other hand non-Darwinists, such as IDists, are free to study formal and final causes too.   Would the TEs, ECs and PCs on this list support the notion of ‘formal cause’ as ‘scientific,’ even if they are not willing to include ‘final cause’ as ‘scientific’? This question ties together with Cameron’s questions in the other thread that uses the language ‘God steers,’ which has gained the favour (or at least not condemnation) of several participants on the list.   “500-page books are a 19th century way of making an argument” – Douglas Hayworth   Not really. On some topics, longer texts are needed. Gould’s “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory,” 1,433 pages, Belnap 2002, is an example. So is Charles Taylor’s “A Secular Age,” 896 pages, Belnap 2007. Such a comment betrays our reality in the electronic-information age. There are lots and lots and lots of pages (even in books) to read, Doug!   Basic questions: Why would a Christian want to defend Darwinism?Is it really fair to say that ‘Christian Darwinism’ or ‘theistic Darwinism’ is a contradiction in terms? Theistic evolutionists seem to want one thing in two different ways in their attempt to accommodate science with theology. It is the philosophical ambiguity of their accommodation, however, that is most problematic.   Gregory   p.s. If one can ask if organisms are steered, then what about human-made things? Is ‘science’ directed or undirected, guided or unguided? If one says it is ‘guided’ then does that mean that science does not ‘advance’ according to Darwinian processes? Or does it mean that ‘science’ is not ‘natural’ and therefore that it doesn’t ‘evolve’ either?     "most of the things scientists do are not science" - Lynn Margulis __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jul 4 09:01:58 2009