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

Heya all,

In the interest of perhaps charting out a middle ground here, I offer some
observations (as someone critical of TEs and IDs both).

1. Terry, I agree with you that Darwin's theological and metaphysical claims
can be, and must be, made distinct from evolutionary science. As I've told
Cameron flat out, if that means regarding Darwinism as non-scientific and
kicking what was the lion's share of Darwin's personal theory (meaning, if
it was largely a metaphysical statement rather than a strictly scientific
development), so much the worse for Darwin - out it goes.

At the same time, wouldn't you agree that the habit of mixing metaphysics in
with "Darwinism" A) Has not been entirely uncommon, B) Has not been
restricted to Darwin himself, and C) Has been engaged in by "darwinists"
themselves? Clearly if we go to Coyne, or Dawkins, or Darwin, or any other
number of evolutionary biologists, this insistence on a lack of guidance -
even guidance of the kind you're defending here, I believe - has shown up
before. In fact, it's a claim that takes center stage nowadays, and the
people who offer this up tend not to make the lines between science and
metaphysics terribly clear (In fact, often times they seem unaware of it
themselves.)

I find it easy to agree with you that "Darwinism", if scientific, is
stripped of theological and philosophical extrapolations and declarations.
Yes, to say that Darwinism rules out guidance, etc, goes beyond science. But
do you really think that the number of scientists who "go beyond science" is
so small as to be not worth discussing? That, I have more trouble accepting.

2. You talk about Darwinian mechanisms only being part of the story - and
the abundance of "non-Darwinian" insights, valid ones, scientific ones, that
now comprise the modern evolutionary perspective. I agree entirely. But to
be dead honest, how often do you hear these insights talked about and
labeled non-Darwinian? When various self-appointed "defends of science" talk
about getting more people to accept evolution, just how important does it
typically seem that people learn about all the things Darwin was wrong
about? In my experience, it's a touchy subject to say the least, and one
they prefer not to get into at all in that context.

So I really think there's some middle ground to be had here. Yes, it's
entirely possible to strip "Darwinism" of Darwin's (and others')
metaphysical/theological declarations - in fact, it's pretty easy to do
that. Cameron (and possibly Gregory) may object that if that is done, you're
removing the bulk of what Darwin spoke about and wrote about, but as seems
to be your position, I really don't care if that's the case. That it would
hurt the feelings of Darwin (or Mayr, for that matter) doesn't make it any
less extraneous, nor do I think it should give anyone more pause.

On the other hand, I do think there's a strong case to be made that this
packing together of theology/metaphysics and science is not some hastily and
mistakenly imagined bogeyman on that part of religious thinkers. There
really is an "ideological darwinism", and those boosting it don't delicately
declare that theirs is a metaphysical perspective and not completely
scientific. Quite the opposite. Distortion of science or not, it's important
to recognize its existence - and that it really needs to be addressed.

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>wrote:

> Gregory,
>
> I'm afraid it's you with the stopped up ears. Almost everyone here knows
> and understands what I'm saying with respect to Darwin and Darwinism except,
> it appears, you and Cameron. You've been beating this horse for a long time
> and you draw all sorts of bizarre conclusions about us.
>
> 1. Darwinian mechanisms are only part of the story--almost all
> evolutionists admit that today. If that makes Darwinian evolution bad
> science, then okay. But I don't think it does. The fundamental insights are
> still sound. They should be in the textbook as a key part of our current
> understanding. New insights: drift, evo-devo, genome acquisition, chromosome
> rearrangements, etc., all non-Darwinian, are important parts of the picture.
>
> 2. How many times must I say it? I don't really care what Darwin said. What
> Darwin said does not equal Darwinian science! If Darwin mistakenly
> extrapolated his scientific insights into some bit of unfortunate theology,
> I don't have to go with him there. Most of the biological community calls
> the scientific insights (WITHOUT THE THEOLOGICAL CLAIMS!!!!) Darwinian.
> Anybody who does extrapolate into claims about how God acts has gone beyond
> science. And this is exactly what Dawkins and company do. Interestingly, the
> same thing can be said of atomic theory or of planetary motion and was said
> of it in the 17th and 18th centuries. God must not be involved if we
> understand how something works in terms of natural causes. Science just
> can't answer that question--the ultimate reason things are the way they are
> is simply not a question that is addressed by science.
>
> 3. You're very mistaken in accusing me of not being a whole/integrated
> person with respect to my science and faith in this matter. I can accept the
> legitimate insights of Darwin (which I do) and call it Darwinian as most
> biologist do. We are not required to accept his version of integration as
> being the only way to bring the scientific insights into a coherent
> perspective, thus Darwin's forgotten defenders.
>
> 4. How do I distinguish Darwinism as ideology from Darwinism as science?
> It's actually very easy. Darwinism is an ideology when it makes metaphysical
> claims about God's role or lack thereof. When it doesn't make those
> metaphysical claims, it is not an ideology--it's merely a scientific theory
> whose merits should be judged by how well it performs when compared to the
> real world. This is the part that you guys don't seem to get. Darwin's
> scientific claims make no NECESSARY metaphysical claims (even if he thought
> they did). Variation and natural selection (together all of our scientific
> descriptions of the natural world) are almost always compatible with either
> metaphysical perspective, the atheistic naturalist (who believes that the
> universe is autonomous needs nothing beside itself) or the theist (who
> believes that the universe is dependent on God for its being, continued
> existence, its properties, etc.).
>
> It's really not hard to see the difference and this is where the debate
> should be. I don't really care where the science goes. I will follow it if
> that's the world that God made. But if you claim that your science--your
> claims about the natural world--tells me about God's involvement in the
> process (or not), you've overstated your case. Science just can't tell us
> that. Back to the original Asa Gray response to Darwin--just because you can
> explain something scientifically doesn't mean that God's not involved.
>
> This isn't rocket science after all.
>
> TG
>
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2009, at 7:32 PM, Gregory Arago wrote:
>
> Hi again Terry,
>>
>> You’ve become a pivotal figure for the moment in the defence of ‘theistic
>> evolution,’ while continuing your opposition to ID. As such, I side with
>> Cameron in challenging your views, which I also find to be fuzzy in terms of
>> ‘science and religion’ accommodation. But in this thread it is now
>> ‘Darwinism’ that you are defending, rather than TE, the former being a much
>> easier target for both Cameron and myself, whereas you seem not to perceive
>> a significant difference between them. Indeed, you seem to want to call
>> yourself a Christian Darwinist, which both Cameron and I find to be absurd.
>>
>> Terry wrote: “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.”
>>
>> Yeah, but Darwinian mechanisms and Darwinian evolution could be ‘bad
>> science,’ Terry. Wouldn’t you agree to this possibility? It seems to me that
>> Cameron is arguing on the question of ‘how scientific are they?’ and he is
>> concluding that they are ‘not all that scientifically rigorous or accurate’
>> of the reality that we are all wishing to better understand.
>>
>> You hear Cameron saying: “anytime you invoke Darwinian [evolution] or
>> Darwinism that you are invoking something that removes God from the
>> picture.”
>>
>> But have you listened to Darwin himself, Terry or are you invoking
>> hearsay? You admit that Cameron has read more of Darwin’s works than you
>> have and you applaud him for it. But you seem to continually doubt Cameron’s
>> ability to analyse what Darwin wrote, instead attributing to Darwin a
>> position that he did not hold. Darwinian evolution (which you equate with
>> Darwinism) does not allow for ‘guidance’! In other words, you are doing
>> exactly what Cameron is saying by twisting Darwin into a friend of faith, a
>> supporter of TE, rather than speaking about him as he was as a dissenter
>> from religious truth and as a threat to theology. You are siding with
>> Darwin’s science, by accepting Darwinism, rather than rejecting Darwin’s
>> metaphysics and theology, and thus rejecting Darwinism.
>>
>> Darwin excluded God in his science and in his person. Scientists don’t
>> agree on the science *in spite of* their religious differences, but because
>> their science shares common ground, in addition to their religious views.
>> There is a tendency at ASA to focus on the ‘warfare model’ far too much. TE
>> is a philosophical assumption that tries to accommodate science with
>> theology. But it does so from an astonishingly weak philosophical framework
>> that simply divides ‘metaphysical’ from ‘methodological.’ I don’t expect you
>> to hear what I’m saying, Terry, if your ears are blocked from listening. And
>> it probably won’t make much sense to you that I think your supposedly ‘newly
>> coined’ term ‘metaphysical Darwinism’ is an unhelpful one. It is like those
>> who speak regularly of Jesus and of God, but forget to speak of the Holy
>> Spirit, which is the Counsellor for all human beings, including natural
>> scientists.
>>
>> Terry wrote: “This distinction [metaphysical vs. scientific] 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.”
>>
>> I’m glad we’ve established your fundamental point: one can agree with
>> Darwin’s science, but reject his metaphysics (read: philosophy). So, then
>> according to this view a scientist is *not* a whole person when they ‘do
>> science’ but rather a shadow of a whole person, who is merely a rationalist
>> or an empiricist or a positivist, i.e. who blocks out their philosophical
>> self in the process? (For those interested in pedantry, the divide between
>> positive science and reflexive science is contemporary here.)
>>
>> What is wrong with sharply dividing ‘science’ from ‘metaphysics’ have been
>> demonstrated so amply and repeatedly over the years that it seems useless to
>> repeat them unless one is ideologically so inclined to hear. I thought you
>> were a more integralistic thinker, Terry, with links to Dooyeweerd and other
>> broad-minded persons who would not reduce biology to ‘Darwinism’ or to
>> ‘neo-Darwinism’ on the basis of a so-called ‘standard definition’ of
>> neo-Darwinism given by none other than E.O. Wilson. Doesn’t this merely
>> demonstrate the fact that TEs are more than happy to run into the arms of
>> E.O. Wilson and D.S. Wilson, Trivers, Pinker, Dawkins, Dennett and other
>> anti-religious persons if and when it suits their personal defence of
>> ‘science’ as a superior or even just legitimate-autonomous type of
>> knowledge?
>>
>> Terry continues: “among professional biologists, the term Darwinism is in
>> fact synonymous with Darwinian evolution.”
>>
>> And do you trust the language of professional biologists on the topic of
>> ‘ideology vs. science’ too, Terry? *Their* language is esoteric on the one
>> hand and simply ridiculous on the other hand. Fine, call a pig a hen if your
>> bounded academic community decides to do it. But please don’t expect
>> everyone else to bow to your terms as if you have some claim to linguistic
>> priority! Let’s not forget Terry that biology borrowed even the term
>> ‘evolution’ from somewhere ‘outside.’
>>
>> Why don’t you instead manage a better grasp of language by calling a spade
>> a spade: Darwinism *is* an ideology, while ‘Darwinian evolution’ is a
>> ‘scientific theory’? At first you indicated your delight in hearing me
>> distinguish the two different things in the way that I did. But then you
>> reverted to using the same old language that is simply unsuitable in the
>> common tongue. Your language regarding (neo-)Darwinism, along with that of
>> the evolutionary biologists, is in the minority. Do you accept this?
>>
>> Again, I ask you openly: Would you not feel comfortable in changing your
>> language to more common, i.e. majority usage?
>>
>> Further, Terry writes: “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.”
>>
>> That ‘Darwinism’ and ‘Darwinian evolution’ mean the same thing in your
>> view is astonishing (though not entirely unusual). Blaming it on the social
>> scientists is unbecoming of inclusive dialogue (should we assume you’ve read
>> more H. Spencer than Darwin, as is the case with most people?). Darwinism,
>> according to your position, thus *is* an ideology that TE does or should
>> support. Is this correct? But I shouldn’t wait for people at ASA to reject
>> Darwinism or neo-Darwinism since ASA doesn’t take a position on them, only
>> individual persons do. Of course, you don’t accept that Darwinism *is* an
>> ideology, which is precisely the main problem. But then again you say that
>> Darwinism is sometimes an ideology, which is again confusing. Cameron seems
>> more willing to be flexible on this issue than I am because he is focussing
>> on the mechanisms of change, which TEs likewise do not always clarify
>> sufficiently.
>>
>> Cameron wrote:
>>
>> “Terry, the terminology of "guidance" that you and David Campbell are
>> using is *just not clear*… The way that you and David Campbell are using
>> "guidance" confuses more than it helps. ”
>>
>> With him, I agree. What could you do to make your position clearer?
>>
>> Terry, your admission in answer to Cameron is rather telling, isn’t it?
>> You write: “I guess that means I'll turn into Dawkins and Coyne.” That is a
>> BIG admission!
>>
>> You continue: “But I reject your inference that that means I don't believe
>> that God is guiding the process.”
>>
>> I know that you do think this, but it is not consistent with Darwin’s
>> views. That is entirely the point, Terry! Dawkins and Coyne do not think
>> that ‘God is guiding the process.’ Darwin, however, *did not* think that
>> ‘God is guiding the process.’ Can you please simply submit to this truth? It
>> is consistent with many studies of Darwin’s work that have been done and is
>> surely not a controversial claim. You seem to submit to it, but then you
>> return to the status quo of defending Darwinism, under the guise of
>> Darwinian evolution, which is what makes your position confusing. Why the
>> messy logic here?
>>
>> Cameron and I both defend a limited meaning of ‘evolution’ too!
>>
>> Terry wrote: “In general Darwin's theology is atrocious and unorthodox”
>>
>> With this we are certainly in agreement. What I don’t understand is how
>> you can so conveniently fragment Darwin into pieces, when a holistic view
>> that co-operates science with philosophy and theology is already possible.
>> Perhaps the main issue is really ideology after all?
>>
>> The real issue here, in this branch from Randy’s OP, is the topic of
>> ideology. You seem to avoid this topic like the plague, Terry. Why is that?
>> You claim Darwinism is not an ‘ideology’. Again, let me ask you, why is
>> that? Or, if you accept that Darwinism is ‘sometimes an ideology’ can you
>> please clarify when it is and when it isn’t? This is the main issue that I
>> would like you to focus on if you make a reply to this message. I have made
>> clear what I believe and accept: Darwinian evolution is a scientific theory,
>> but Darwinism is an ideology. Would you be willing to adjust your grammar to
>> say the same thing, and if not, then why not?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Gregory
>>
>>
>> Get the name you've always wanted ! @ymail.com or @rocketmail.com.
>>
>
> ________________
> 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 Fri Jul 10 04:35:16 2009