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

Terry:

Thanks for this further reply. Your patience and gentlemanly demeanour are
appreciated, in an area of debate which often incites people to anger. I
will try to make a more or less final restatement of my view.

The definition of Darwinism or neo-Darwinism or Darwinian evolution that you
give is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. "It follows
that evolution has occurred..." That gentle statement is compatible with,
for example, the view that only microevolution has occurred. Nothing is
said about the crossing of major boundaries such as order, class, or phyla.
Nothing is said about all life forms descending from a few or perhaps only
one. This statement of evolution is soft-pedalled. Darwin felt certain
that the vertebrates at least had a common ancestor -- hence, he was
unambiguously a macroevolutionist. I expect that the author of this
statement was, too, but one can't be sure from the bare words. But why
pussyfoot, if that's what the theory implies?

The other and more important thing that is missing from this statement is
that the assumptions and motivation for evolutionary theorizing are
concealed, in a way that they are not concealed in Darwin. Darwin makes it
plain that he wants a wholly scientific and wholly naturalistic account of
origins. The writer of your statement doubtless also wanted that, but
doesn't say so. The writer, like Darwin, assumes that a wholly naturalistic
account is possible and desirable and even required by the nature of modern
science -- which doesn't consider anything to have been "explained" until it
can be accounted for by wholly naturalistic means. But the writer doesn't
bring this out. We don't see Darwinian evolution for what it is until we
understand that the whole idea is to eliminate not only "miracles" but
intelligent design of any kind. It was spawned out of the insight (or
theological opinion) that "origins" were to be treated in exactly the same
manner as normal scientific questions, i.e., that it was legitimate and even
required to assume that origins would yield fully satisfactory answers to
the scientific method, and would one day be as well understood as Boyle's
Law or Kepler's Laws.

Now you might say, well, the passage is simply stating the nuts and bolts of
the theory, and doesn't need to get into the foundation assumptions and so
on. Well, in one sense I agree with that. For some purposes this statement
of neo-Darwinism is sufficient and I have no problem with it. But as we are
having a larger discussion here about the nature and methods of science, the
nature of nature, the action of God, teleology and chance, and so on, I
think we need to bear in mind the larger intellectual framework out of which
Darwinism and neo-Darwinism emerged. Oddly enough, it is in some of the
less formal statements of neo-Darwinism by popular writers like Sagan and
Asimov and Jastrow (all smart cookies with Ph.D.s in the sciences, though
outside of evolutionary biology construed as a narrow technical field), that
we see the original spirit and motivation of Darwinism more clearly than in
the statement you have chosen.

To clarify one more time, my view does not require the view that Darwin was
an atheist. It is compatible with his being a Deist, or some sort of
maverick theist (of the Victorian type you spoke of). The point is that his
view entails a "hands-off" God, who of course remains behind the laws of
nature in some unknown way, but who does not direct the individual results
of evolution. Darwin's God, regarding biology, is neither a sculptor nor a
mechanic. He's more like a guy who throws out many different sorts of seeds
onto some fertile soil and lets them grow, taking no effort to weed out
invasive species during the process, and sits back and enjoys the luxurious
spectacle of organic life that follows. I think this view is compatible
with *some sort of* God, but I don't think it's compatible with any
historically orthodox (Protestant or Catholic) understanding of
Christianity.

I'm not attacking Darwin for his lack of conventional religious belief. I'm
not in the orthodoxy business. (And there I differ from at least some ID
people.) I'm merely pointing out the tension between his insistence upon
no-design and traditional Christian understandings of design. Even if you
allow, as I do, that Genesis need not be read literally, and that an
evolutionary process could "replace" the story in Genesis 1 as the "means"
of creation, there is still the problem that Darwin conceived of this
process as inherently unguided (it could hardly be otherwise, given the
methods of evolution that he asserts), whereas the Biblical author would
obviously conceive of any such process as guided.

In any case, I don't wish to fight over terminology. Even if I grant you
your terminology, I still need a word to express the view which I am
attributing to Darwin and to many of his followers in the field of
evolutionary theory. I have used the word "Darwinian" because I can't think
of a better one.

The three views of evolution that I have distinguished (from a metaphysical
point of view, if you insist on that language) are that evolution occurs
(roughly speaking) via chance, necessity, or design. (1) The view that it
occurs by "chance" I am calling Darwinism or Darwinian evolution. (Of
course there is a good deal of necessity or natural law mixed in with
Darwin's view as well, but as it depends heavily on contingent events, it
depends ultimately on chance whether or not man or any other species ever
evolves.) (2) The view that it occurs by "necessity" I am calling
"front-loading" or "fine-tuning" -- the universe was "rigged" so that not
only evolution would occur, but would occur in a certain direction, making
man inevitable. (Of course there is an element of chance in this view, but
it is subdued in relation to the element of necessity; chance can determine
which planet and when, but cannot significantly alter the final outcome.)
(3) And then there is the view that the evolutionary process is
intelligently steered, guided, etc., to bring out some preconceived design.
(This view is compatible with both chance and necessitarian processes --
even to a large degree Darwinian processes -- because the steerer/designer
can always "adjust" for the excesses of necessity and chance as the process
moves along.)

Note that all three of these views would be compatible with the fossil
record, with the genetic data that Bernie keeps harping on, etc. But note
that they are quite different in what they say about what nature is and how
nature works -- even if we take the position that the difference would be
hard or impossible to detect by scientific means. In the first view, nature
is understood as autonomous within its sphere. God is off somewhere else
and has given nature carte blanche to produce something beautiful, or make a
mess of things, as it will. And in the first view there is no design and no
guarantee that nature will produce anything of religious significance, e.g.,
man. In the second view, nature is still autonomous within its sphere --
God is still a mere spectator -- but before letting nature go, God rigged it
so that nature would produce something religiously significant -- man or a
manlike being. Maybe the exact planet was left to chance, and maybe some
minor details were left to chance (what colour aardvarks would be, etc.),
but God made sure that nature would at least get to certain goals, sometime
and someplace. In the third view, nature is not autonomous within its
sphere. It may be 90% autonomous, maybe even 99.99% autonomous, but not
100% autonomous. God reserves the right to make personal appearances, so to
speak, where and when he wishes, whether rarely, frequently, or
continuously. In the third view, "evolution" is the co-production of
"nature" and "God". God genuinely "co-operates" with nature, not
necessarily in the theological jargon of "co-operation" (which I don't fully
understand and often find vague), but in the normal, everyday sense of the
word -- nature wouldn't "get there" without the extra input from God. (That
input may be very subtle, scientifically indetectable, etc., but it's
there.) And something religiously significant -- man -- is produced, and
even the precise details and timing of that can be guaranteed.

My position all along has not been that Darwin is a fang-toothed demon who
deserves eternal perdition. I like the guy! I like him a lot. I like him
better than Dawkins or Coyne or Miller or Collins. I hope he makes it to
heaven, after a suitably long educative stay in the Purgatory of the Nobly
Misguided. My position is that Darwinian evolution, as explained above, is
not compatible with standard Christianity. And my position is that
front-loading *may* be compatible with standard Christianity, and that the
third position, that of the "steering designer" is *definitely* compatible
with standard Christianity.

Now if you want to call my three options metaphysical rather than
scientific, go ahead. If you want to say that science could not tell the
difference between them, then go ahead. But whether TEs like it or not, not
only Dawkins and Coyne but many members of the general public, ranging from
highly educated middle-class people to the very uneducated Bible-thumpers,
understand Darwin's theory as intrinsically bound up with chance and
hostility to design. Years of very effective writing and commentary from
Crick, Jastrow, Asimov, Sagan, Gaylord Simpson, etc., have seen to that.
When the public answers surveys about "evolution", most of the respondents
have in mind "unguided, chance-driven evolution". They have in mind what I
call Darwinism or Darwinian evolution. And when they are asked whether they
"believe in evolution", they understand that to mean: "If there were no God
at all, or no God who did anything by way of either steering or planning,
and the earth started as a fiery ball of matter with nothing but methane,
carbon dioxide, etc., do you believe that life would have formed by chance
plus the natural properties of things, that all species that we know would
have formed by chance plus the natural properties of things, that man would
have emerged by chance plus the natural properties of things?" And
overwhelmingly, most of them find this improbable, and answer "No!"

I would submit that the proper answer to these nay-sayers, for Dawkins and
his ilk, is to provide a detailed, step-by-step account of how the
cardiovascular system or brain or camera eye could have formed via mutations
and natural selection if both the mutations and natural selection were
*really* unguided. And I would submit that the proper answer to these
nay-sayers, for Christians who believe in evolution, i.e., for theistic
evolutionists, is to grant entirely that under the situation envisioned, it
is very unlikely that life, all the species and man would have evolved, but
that, fortunately, God *is* involved, either as planner and front-loader, or
steerer and guider, in some combination of these ways, and that therefore
not "chance", but design, reason, intellect, or mind is the ultimate
explanation for how we got here -- which does not rule out a major
subordinate role for naturalistic processes, including Darwinian processes.
However, in stating their position, TEs are rarely as clear as I have just
been. And what I have been trying to fathom here is whether this lack of
clarity is caused merely by incidental aspects of TE thinking or writing, or
whether TEs simply disagree with the position I would like them to take.
(So perhaps, Terry, this paragraph of my reply is the most important one for
you to comment on, if you choose to reply again.)

In any case, I will never myself embrace the TE position until TEs generally
denounce the notion that *truly* unguided processes could be entirely
responsible for evolution. Nor will any other ID proponent. Even Michael
Behe, who is both a theist and an evolutionist, and therefore has every
right to call himself a theistic evolutionist, will not do so, because TE
currently is strongly associated with the belief (or at least the refusal to
deny) that unguided processes could be entirely responsible for evoluiton.
For Behe, as for myself, the empirical evidence that unguided processes can
accomplish such a feat is far, far too weak, and the public needs to know
just how weak it is. So, while I agree with TEs regarding their
*theological* critique of Dawkins, etc. (as do Behe, Dembski, etc.), I
couple that theological critique with a scientific critique. In TE that
scientific critique of the powers of unguided mechanisms is utterly lacking,
and that seems to be the main barrier between ID and TE at the present.

Cameron.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 10:57 AM
Subject: 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.
>

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 16:16:00 2009