Hi,
Thank you for your post. If this is middle ground, then I have been
misunderstood. This is almost exactly my position.
I fully agree that Coyne and Dawkins are "metaphysical Darwinists" and
they need to be refuted. But they need to be refuted based on their
metaphysics not their science. It is possible and scientific to speak
of chance variations that aren't produced by some mechanism that
anticipates the needs of the evolving creature. This is what Coyne and
Dawkins should speak about when they talk about "unguided". There is
no evidence that any such anticipatory mechanism exists. Add to those
variations the power of natural selection given a particular
environment and you have a "scientific" explanation for many aspects
of the observed world. This is Darwin's elegant, yet simple insight.
Once anyone, whether it's Darwin or Dawkins, says that "unguided" in
this sense means "unguided" by God you're stepping over the boundaries
of what science can claim. That's how I can tell the difference
between metaphysical Darwinism and Darwinian evolution.
I will gladly join arms with ID folks in resisting metaphysical
Darwinism.
I will gladly join arms with ID folks in resisting metaphysical
Darwinism!
I WILL GLADLY JOIN ARMS WITH ID FOLKS IN RESISTING METAPHYSICAL
DARWINISM.
But that's not what they are about--they believe that you have to
undermine the scientific claims. I've gotten this for the past 15
years as I've actively engaged them here and elsewhere.
So, frankly, it's an embarrassment scientifically when Mike Behe comes
to town and shows the audience this complicated molecular graphic of a
complex molecular machine and stands back and says "Wow, look how
complicated that is. We all can see that was designed, therefore the
Darwin was wrong." The crowd bursts into applause. It's hardly
different from a Ken Ham lecture. But at the same time, Ken Miller
pulled similar shenanigans with his sympathetic pro-evolution crowd. I
will not hesitate to take on the scientific errors and misstatements
in the interest of the truth. I also will not hesitate to commend him
for his stance against metaphysical Darwinism. But sometimes it seems
to me that ID guys would turn into metaphysical Darwinists if they
ever were convinced that their ID arguments were wrong. That somehow
their belief in a Creator is linked to their seeing direct evidence of
Him in their science. This is a grave mistake.
I too wish that the spokespersons for evolution would acknowledge non-
Darwinian mechanisms. But in the present climate there is a conflation
of terminology (yes, Gregory, I admit it) so that, for many, Darwinian
evolution equals biological evolution. This is why I appreciate folks
like Stephen Jay Gould and Stuart Kauffman and Brian Goodwin ("How the
Leopard Changed It's Spots") who recognize things like morphological
constraint, geometric form, self-organization, evo-dev, etc. all which
play roles that influence evolution and aren't easily woven into a
purely Darwinian version of evolutionary biology.
TG
On Jul 10, 2009, at 2:34 AM, Schwarzwald wrote:
> 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.
>
________________
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 Fri Jul 10 11:17:23 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jul 10 2009 - 11:17:23 EDT