Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

Gregory and Cameron,

I am delighted to hear you say that Darwinian evolution and Darwinian
mechanisms are scientific (contra Darwinism). I'm not sure that
Cameron would agree. I hear him saying that anytime you invoke
Darwinian or Darwinism that you are invoking something that removes
God from the picture. Perhaps he could clarify for us.

I am also in agreement with you about the fundamental issue--there is
a difference between the metaphysical claims (which you label
Darwinism and embody claims about God's role) and pure "scientific"
claims (which you seem willing to label Darwinian). This distinction
is and has been my fundamental point all along, i.e. it is possible to
agree as a Christian with Darwin's theory inasmuch as it does not
specify God's involvement or lack thereof.

While I agree with you that precision in language is useful, I
recognize (and you need to recognize) that such precision is not
always the case. So, among professional biologists, the term Darwinism
is in fact synonymous with Darwinian evolution. To wit:

"This classic work became the means by which the theory gained support
and, in the porcess, came to be called Darwinism. The theory of Darwin
and Wallace can be expressed as follows: Every population and
individual organisms contains genetic variability. Some of the
hereditary traits permit individuals to survive and reproduce better
than others. As a consequence, these superior traits become more
prevalent in later generations. It follows that evolution has
occurred...The development of evolutionary biology since about 1920 is
often referred to as the MODERN SYNTHESIS, or NEO-DARWINISM, by which
is meant that Mendelian genetics has been fused with the theory of
natural selection, creating the basic discipline of population
genetics." (Life on Earth, Wilson et al. 636-638)

The above standard textbook definition/description is Darwinian
evolution (in the "scientific" sense by your distinctions). If it's
not, then you or Cameron need to help me see where not. Yet, it is
labeled Darwinism in the textbook. So, the language is less precise
than you want it to be. Darwinism as an ideology in these textbooks
usually has a modifier "social" as in "social Darwinism" and nearly
every textbook distinguishes between Darwinism and social Darwinism.
To coin a new term along the same lines I might add "metaphysical
Darwinism" which includes claims about God's role or lack thereof.

So when I define Darwinism to be Darwinian evolution, there should be
no confusion in your mind. You may not like my choice of words or the
range of semantic meaning that I give the term "Darwinism", but there
is no reason for you to be confused.

I would like to respond briefly to Cameron's response to me about his
expertise in Darwin's writings. I laud the depth of your study here.
You have studied Darwin's writings much more than I have. However, I
don't understand your point here. I fully agree that Darwin believed
what you say he believed and that he thought his theory had the
theological implications that you say it has. I've said that in point
#2 of my TE/EC response. But that's beside the point. I also said that
Darwin was wrong about it. He was a "metaphysical Darwinist" to use
the newly coined term. Theists of all stripes open to Darwin's
"scientific" claims rejected Darwin's theological claims: Asa Gray,
B.B. Warfield, and all subsequent theistic evolutionists. They
accepted the moniker Darwinist or Darwinian as long as it was
understood that we're not talking about God's role. This is why there
is such an amazing difference between Charles Hodge's view of
Darwinism and B.B. Warfield's view (who followed Hodge on most other
points of theology and opinion). Hodge took Darwin's words at face
value and did not distinguish between his science and his theology;
Warfield does so distinguish as does Asa Gray. Even though Ayala is
usually considered a theistic evolutionist, he commits the same error
in "Darwin's Gift".

In general Darwin's theology is atrocious and unorthodox like much of
Victorian Anglicanism; my critique of Ayala is similar. If I re-work
Darwin's ideas into what I consider to be Calvinistic orthodoxy, you
get something similar to my view (and the view of Asa Gray and B.B.
Warfield). See David Livingstone's "Darwin's Forgotten Defenders" for
a nice discussion of this.

No doubt when Dawkins speaks of Darwinism he is speaking of
"metaphysical Darwinism" (I am not familiar enough with Simpson's or
Mayr's broader writings to know if that's true of them--I have studied
Mayr's philosophy of biology and I don't recall any discussion of
this--I was primarily interested in his notions of reductionism and
autonomy of biology.) I'm not so sure Gould speaks of Darwinism in the
same way because he recognizes, without necessarily sharing the belief
himself, that such a theistic view is possible.

TG

On Jul 9, 2009, at 4:08 AM, Gregory Arago wrote:

> Hi Terry,
>
> Though I can understand why Cameron is growing tired of clearly
> repeating himself about the meaning of 'Darwinism' according to him,
> let me just take a moment to challenge you on what you mean by
> 'ideology.'
>
> You write:
> "I, as most life scientists, think that Darwinism is a scientific
> idea (and not a ideology) embodying the Darwinian mechanisms of
> "random" mutation that does not anticipate the need of the
> organism, natural selection, gradualism, etc."
>
> Would you not feel comfortable in changing your language to more
> common usage? That is, it would be more understandable if you would
> distinguish science from ideology instead of lumping the two
> together in the term 'Darwinism.' Thus, could you not say that
> "Darwinian evolution is a scientific idea (and not an ideology)
> embodying the Darwinian mechanisms..."?
>
> Or do you conflate the meanings of 'Darwinism' and 'Darwinian
> evolution' whereas most people (who are linguistically more exact,
> even if they are not life scientists) do not?
>
> Evolutionary theory is scientific (in so far as it strives/has
> striven to be truthful about reality), while evolutionism is an
> ideology.
> Darwinian evolution is scientific (in so far as it strives/has
> striven to be truthful about reality), while Darwinism is an ideology.
> Is this way of seeing not harmonisable with how you speak about and
> understand the topic, as a 'life scientist'? Or else, Terry, why are
> you so reluctant to call 'Darwinism' an ideology, the spade as a
> spade?
>
> With due respect, delivered in direct words,
> Gregory
>
> ~
>
> “Ideology can be conceived of as communication systematically
> distorted by the exercise of power.” – J.B. Thompson
>
> “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”
> – Edward Abbey (anthropomorphic view of 'ideology')
>
> “Faith in God's revelation has nothing to do with an ideology which
> glorifies the status quo.” – Karl Barth
>
> “You can't be suspicious of a tree, or accuse a bird or a squirrel
> of subversion or challenge the ideology of a violet.” – Hal Borland
> (non-anthropomorphic view of 'ideology')
>
>
> From: Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
> To: ASA <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 3:22:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response
>
> Terry:
>
> You've written without any mean-spiritedness a good summary of the
> state of our debate. I agree that we cannot get much further at the
> moment.
>
> Regarding point 1, I certainly grant the majority of scientists to
> right to follow the evidence wherever they think it leads. I
> acknowledge that the current situation is what you say it is. I
> respect scientists who accept Darwinian evolution as long as they do
> not bully or threaten the careers of dissenters, or overstate the
> evidence for their conclusions, and as long as they remain open to
> fundamental (not just trivial) criticisms of the Darwinian model.
>
> Regarding point 2, I think that you, and several other people here,
> are in error about the views of Darwin and about the general
> character of historical Darwinism. I think you are back-reading
> your TE wishes into what Darwin and Darwinism historically have
> been. I have just re-read Darwin's Autobiography (3rd time now),
> I've read (and by "read" I mean *studied*) The Origin of Species in
> its entirety, parts of it twice, also large chunks of The Descent of
> Man, and many of his Letters, and many discussions of his work, and
> have debated the meaning of many of his passages with competent
> students, and I'm convinced I understand Darwin's position. His
> position is that evolution was unguided -- *really* unguided, not
> just "methodologically speaking" unguided. And I'm certain that he
> would have angrily spurned any TE attempt to "rescue" his theory
> from the "unguided" part for Christian purposes. He would have said
> that the unguidedness is not a metaphysical add-on to his view, but
> an essential component of the scientific theory itself. And he
> would have dismissed TE protestation -- that "unguided" is
> metaphysical rather than scientific language -- as mere pedantry
> which misses the substantive point of what his theory was *about*.
> He knew full well that he was opposing Paley and that the essence of
> Paley was design. And he wanted to say that the appearance of design
> could be achieved without guidance.
>
> I'm also convinced that the mainstream of important 20th-century
> evolutionary biologists -- Mayr, Simpson, etc. -- were Darwinian in
> my sense. And it is their view, not the view of the people of this
> list, or of TEs elsewhere, that properly defines "Darwinism". But I
> don't think it's worth fighting any more about the label.
>
> The point is that there is a theory around -- call it Darwinian or
> not, call it metaphysical or scientific or whatever you want -- that
> says that unguided chemical and biological processes produced life
> and all species. *That* is the theory that has caused all the public
> furor from the time of Darwin to the present. Never mind whether it
> is scientific or theological or
> whatever-- just recognize that *that* is what has caused all the
> furor. And my point is that *there is no hard scientific evidence*
> that *truly unguided* processes could have performed such a complex
> set of operations. Thus, the theory is highly speculative, yes has
> been sold as a certain result of science.
>
> ID has challenged this theory. In my view, ID was entirely right to
> do so. Whether ID itself is a scientific theory or some other kind
> of animal (philosophy, whatever) is not a question I lose a lot of
> sleep over. What is important to me is that ID is a rational
> approach to nature, whereas Darwinism requires a colossal suspension
> of disbelief in highly improbable events. It is not self-evident to
> me that a technically "scientific" theory which is highly improbable
> is more likely to be the truth about nature than a technically "non-
> scientific" theory which is empirically based and does much more
> justice to the incredible degree of integrated complexity that we
> witness in nature.
>
> 3. This paragraph is interesting:
>
> > And the evidence keeps coming...a few weeks ago there was some
> discussion
> > of the origin of the immune system in Science (including a
> picture from
> > the Dover trial with a stack of books and papers confounding
> Behe's claim
> > that there was no theory of the origin of this complex system). It
> > appears that vertebrates got it via some lateral gene transfer in
> a viral
> > infection.
>
> You call this "evidence"? I call it "sheer speculation". "*It
> appears that* vertebrates got it via some lateral gene transfer".
> It appears to that way to whom? What you mean is that someone *has
> speculated that* vertebrates may have got it via some lateral gene
> transfer. The purported event happened hundreds of millions of
> years ago and we cannot recover it. (And notice the vague qualifier:
> "some" lateral gene transfer -- its advocates can't even precisely
> define it. Why don't they specify the nucleotide sequence that in
> their opinion got transferred? I would guess because they don't
> have the slightest clue.) Why would you pass off this surmise about
> a unique, one-time event which can never be observed, or
> demonstrated to have happened, as "science"? What Faraday and
> Newton and Mendeleev and Pasteur did was science. This kind of
> speculation, without genetic details, is story-telling, neither
> confirmable nor falsifiable; it teaches nothing, and adds nothing to
> the stock of human knowledge.
>
> Further, even if true, this would just pass the problem back to a
> different species. If the vertebrates got the whole system from the
> invertebrates, how did the system arise in the invertebrates? From
> another viral gene transfer? Sooner or later the buck stops, and
> evolutionary biologists will have to do the hard work and tell us
> how the immune system was built up from scratch. Where in the
> biological literature can I find such an explanation?
>
> 4. I continue to maintain that you are wrong about probability
> theory. If you are arguing what you appear to be arguing, here is
> what you are saying:
>
> 1. You come across a nearly-complete version of Mt. Rushmore in the
> desert. One of Lincoln's eyebrows is slightly wrong, but would
> become right if one small piece of rock was blasted away by
> lightning or weathered away. You calculate the probability of this
> happening before something else is weathered away, and you come up,
> with, say, one in a million.
>
> 2. You come across an empty rock face capable of being carved into
> Mt. Rushmore. You calculate the probability that weathering will
> produce a duplicate of Mt. Rushmore. According to your reasoning in
> the biological case, the probability is no lower than in the case of
> fixing the eyebrow-- still relatively high, one in a million. But
> this is clearly, obviously
> wrong. The probability is more like one in a zillion.
>
> So, either you are simply in error about the biological case, or
> your argument is not clear.
>
> In probability theory, the relevant calculation depends on where you
> sit. If you are sitting at the beginning of an evolutionary process,
> where all you have is a shrew, and your task is to determine whether
> chance mutations can turn the shrew into a bat in X million years,
> you must first determine "What set of changes would it take to turn
> this shrew into a bat?", and then calculate the probability, which
> will be a compound probability, since the mutations are
> theoretically independent. Obviously, if you are sitting near the
> end of process, where all you need is to add one piece of webbing
> between two fingers of the bat,
> then you need to know only "What mutation will give me that
> webbing?" and to calculate the probability of that single mutation,
> and the probability will be vastly higher than in the other case.
>
> Now, if you ask the question: "Could homo sapiens have arisen from
> a bacterium, purely out of unguided mutations and natural
> selection", in calculating the probability, you surely cannot simply
> calculate this on the basis of the mutations that would be necessary
> to turn a Neanderthal into a Cro-Magnon. You have to calculate on
> the basis of all the mutations running from the bacterium through to
> the Cro-Magnon. I do not see how this is anything other than obvious.
>
> Incidentally, I passed on your argument to a couple of major ID
> proponents that I happen to "know" (not personally, but
> electronically), and who have more math and science than I do, and
> they have confirmed that the compound probability of the whole
> sequence of changes is the relevant one.
>
> 5. See my other reply to your next note.
>
> Cameron.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu
> >
> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 11:48 PM
> Subject: [asa] TE/EC Response
>
>
> > With Cameron and Gregory so eloquently summarizing the state of our
> > recent discussions from their perspective, let me try to provide a
> > similar summary from my perspective.
> >
> > 1. In light of the recent exchange between Cameron and David, it
> seems to
> > me that perhaps the bottom line difference has to doing with how
> > convincing we regard the evidence for a secondary cause based
> > evolutionary account. I fully agree with David's assessment of
> the state
> > of the art. I would probably go even one step further and say
> that due to
> > the historical nature of biological evolution and due to contingent
> > nature of some of critical events (chance mutations, cross- overs,
> genome
> > acquisitions, extinctions, etc.) and due to the antiquity of these
> > events, that it may not be possible to construct the kind of
> detailed
> > scenario that Cameron insists upon. To him, it seems, these sorts
> of
> > provisos casts a dark cloud over our confidence. Others of us
> (and most
> > professional practicing life scientists) find the current state of
> > affairs to be good enough to assert with confidence appropriate
> for any
> > scientific theory that the key pieces of the story are in place and
> > convincing enough. I, for one, have had that bent since the late
> 70's and
> > have only seen gaps filled, questions answered, and more and more
> success
> > of the general evolutionary biological story. The evo-devo
> developments
> > of the past two decades have addressed in principle in my mind
> many of
> > the difficult questions that Cameron keeps raising.
> >
> > Perhaps it's a different psychological bent between TE's and
> ID's. Maybe
> > TE's do have a lower bar. But, Cameron or Denton or Behe is not
> giving me
> > any new information when they tell me how much we don't know. I
> know full
> > well. Yet, I am convinced of the general story by the evidence
> that is
> > there. Perhaps there is a difference between the way biologists
> think and
> > the way chemists think. I am trained primarily as a biologist but
> have
> > straddled the fence with a strong chemistry and biophysics
> history as
> > well. It is probably the case the most non-life scientists take
> the word
> > of their biologists colleagues, but, as I said before, most
> professional
> > life scientists are convinced.
> >
> > If this is the case, then we are at an impasse of sorts. I don't
> really
> > see a problem with that. I'm convinced; the community of practicing
> > scientists is convinced. That's the way it is. There may come a
> day when
> > that's not the case and the voices of ID advocates, Denton, et
> al. will
> > turn the tables. I may someday be convinced otherwise. But today
> is not
> > that day and I think through the theological implications of my
> science
> > in light of how the world looks to me today. Since Gregory has
> been so
> > fond of reminding us of the sociology of science, he should not
> be overly
> > shocked to hear that science is what scientists think (today).
> May or may
> > not be right. In fact, in light of history, it's likely not to be
> right.
> > However, today, in our science education we teach what we (the
> scientific
> > community) think is the best explanation for things.
> >
> > What to do? Well, let's keep working: those trying to fill in the
> gaps of
> > the current theoretical framework (science as usual) and the
> critics (the
> > revolutionaries). The critics have a tougher go at it and may
> find it
> > difficult to get funding, to publish, etc. But that's the way it
> works.
> > Time will tell who is right (if we are realists of any sort,
> which I am).
> >
> > 2. As for the term "Darwinism". Most of us on the TE/EC side of
> things
> > reject the arguments that Cameron and Gregory and perhaps others
> have put
> > forth that "Darwinism" is intrinsically anti-theistic. To think
> so is a
> > conflation of secondary causes (nature, creation, etc.) with
> primary
> > causation (God's role) (as David Siemens eloquently put it). Darwin
> > committed that error--Asa Gray answered it in his day. Dawkins
> commits
> > the error today. As does Cameron and most ID folks. To state it
> boldly:
> > my option #4 is identical to Cameron's option #1 from the secondary
> > causation point of view. Macroevolution does not require
> miracles--it can
> > all happen "without God lifting a finger"--is that clear enough?
> > (although I unequivocally reject Cameron's way of putting
> > that--concurrence is not merely sustaining the laws of nature-- it
> is active governance--micromanaging, if you will). However, from the
> > primary causation point of view evolution is guided (as are all
> secondary
> > causes, even the actions of free agents). So, I, as most life
> scientists,
> > think that Darwinism is a scientific idea (and not a ideology)
> embodying
> > the Darwinian mechanisms of "random" mutation that does not
> anticipate
> > the need of the organism, natural selection, gradualism, etc. All
> of
> > these say nothing about God's role in the process. It seems that in
> > principle Cameron agrees that it's possible for divine governance
> to be
> > "hidden" in stochastic processes, but the fact that he can't
> distinguish
> > between his option #3 and my option #4 and his belief that
> improbable
> > sequences of mutations are not possible without divine guidance
> suggest
> > otherwise.
> >
> > 3. This is not to say that God cannot perform a miracle during
> > evolutionary history. I strongly affirm that he is fully able to
> work
> > outside of normal secondary causes and believe that we have several
> > reported events of such in scripture. I don't see any reason to
> appeal to
> > such in the course of cosmic history. In scripture miracles seem
> to be
> > associated with special redemptive and revelatory events. I don't
> expect
> > to see them normally. In fact, the "normal" (God's regular
> governance) is
> > a necessary milieu for the miraculous (God's irregular
> governance). Given
> > the historical nature of evolution, I'm not sure how you can tell
> the
> > difference between a miracle and a God-governed chance event.
> >
> > 4. As for storing up genotypic changes...this is exactly what
> exaptation
> > does. All the pieces are present already and when they are combined
> > something novel emerges which can now be selected upon. Irreducible
> > complexity is no mystery. Gene duplication, sexual recombination,
> > horizontal gene transfer, genome acquistions are all mechanisms
> that
> > accomplish this. It is true that I am not able to come up with the
> > detailed account of how this has happened, but I can give credible
> > scenarios that combined with the record in the genomes, gives
> striking
> > confirmation of the theory. And the evidence keeps coming...a few
> weeks
> > ago there was some discussion of the origin of the immune system in
> > Science (including a picture from the Dover trial with a stack of
> books
> > and papers confounding Behe's claim that there was no theory of the
> > origin of this complex system). It appears that vertebrates got
> it via
> > some lateral gene transfer in a viral infection. Once the incipient
> > function is there (and it didn't arise gradualistically), Darwinian
> > mechanisms have their fodder. So the modern account involves both
> > Darwinian mechanism and newly discovered non-Darwinian mechanism.
> All the
> > pieces of the eye, even at the biochemical level, are homologs of
> pieces
> > of other functioning systems. Perhaps an eye evolves in the
> twinkling of
> > an eye (as Dawkins cleverly put it--I guess he knows his Bible
> even if he
> > doesn't believe it).
> >
> > 5. Cameron speaks of the Laplacian universe where God must be the
> most
> > skilled Fats Domino that one can imagine. While I have no trouble
> > imagining that God can do this, I'm not sure I believe it's
> necessary to
> > think this way. While I have a reductionist and mechanist bent, I
> don't
> > think they work at every level or through every level. All the
> usually
> > things can be said here--quantum indeterminacy, chaos, etc. But,
> I don't
> > find it necessary to do that. This is a critique of some of my TE/
> EC
> > colleagues. As under point #2 I don't want to conflate God's role
> with
> > any particular creational dimension. God can do what he want how he
> > wants. And I don't really think we can explain how and where it
> happens
> > in creaturely terms. If a key mutation occurs whether it's via a
> > radiation event that God tweaked to pop out at a certain time (or
> even
> > specially created) or a spontaneous low probability isomeric
> transition
> > of a nucleotide at the point of replication. It doesn't bother me
> that
> > God tweaks. What seems to be the case is that God tweaks in a way
> that we
> > usually can't tell.
> >
> > 6. Cameron's view that the sequence of evolutionary events seems
> > improbable is an argument for design just is wrong in my opinion.
> I've
> > commented on this before. The probability of the next mutation is
> the
> > same no matter what mutation occurred before it. Relevant to this is
> > Gould's essay about batting average records. There's only one way
> for the
> > distribution to go--similar, he argues, to biological complexity.
> >
> > 7. The pattern of evolution or the "fact" of evolution (trees of
> > relatedness from classification or sequence comparisons or Bernie's
> > appeals recently to chromosome fusions, etc) are convincing
> especially in
> > light of known mechanisms of reproduction and inheritance and the
> kinds
> > of changes that we not only infer but actually do see as we compare
> > sequences from generation to generation. No I don't have the
> detailed
> > mechanism for how all evolutionary change occurred. Neither have
> I a
> > detailed mechanism for development from fertilized egg to adult
> organism.
> > But the pattern is there and there is nothing inconsistent (with
> my level
> > of credulity) with thinking that it happens without special
> intervention.
> > Figuring out the mechanism in more detail is part of our task.
> >
> > 8. As for Bill's question about the connection between "apparent
> age" and
> > "apparent randomness". If I believed that the Bible taught that
> the earth
> > is young, I'd probably adopt some kind of apparent age view. I
> don't
> > believe the Bible requires that viewpoint. I do believe that the
> Bible
> > teaches that God governs all events even those that appear to be
> random.
> > Thus, even with the most hideous of events, I believe that God is
> in
> > control and has his reasons, although I don't always fathom them.
> I don't
> > believe that I'm at the mercy of chance and necessity (or even my
> own
> > brilliant and not-so-brilliant choices) and I trust God in his
> wisdom and
> > plan to do what he will in my life that will accomplish his
> purposes for
> > me. My kids' genetic and biological makeup are the result of
> multitude of
> > chance events, yet I believe that they have been fearfully and
> > wonderfully made and knitted together by their sovereign Lord.
> Their
> > psychological and social histories are similarly contingent, and
> > influenced by their own free choices. Yet even those are directed
> by
> > their sovereign Lord. Do I have empirical evidence of this divine
> > governance? Probably not anything that is convincing even to a
> moderately
> > skeptical person. Yet, the Bible tells me so.
> >
> > TG
> >
> > ________________
> > Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> > Computer Support Scientist
> > Chemistry Department
> > Colorado State University
> > Fort Collins, CO 80523
> > (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet
> Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free!

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 9 10:59:26 2009