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

Hi Terry, Though it may sometimes be frustrating when negotiating language and expressions with a point of view that seems to not be completely understood (by both of us) it nevertheless seems that we are making some progress here. I understand your position and don't say that you've blocked your ears, but rather that perhaps you're somehow not hearing the points that I'm making in their directness. However, now from this message to Schwarzwald I see that you've understood more than I thought from your previous post to me. You write: "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." This is great! It is even expressed unconditionally, i.e. you don't write 'I *would* cooperate,' but rather 'I *will* join.' Should we expect from you some joint projects with ID folks now on this resistance to 'metaphysical Darwinism'? Or is this just idle talk? It is true that many IDs, if not the vast majority, are also challenging 'scientific Darwinism' (as you call it). But it is not only IDs, Terry, who are challenging 'scientific Darwinism.' Douglas Alchin in American Biology Teacher pointed out some of 'Darwin's errors' this year, Lynn Margulis has done so on many occasions, as has Michael Denton and Michael Behe (the latter two which constitute one and perhaps a half ID advocate). Cameron has made this issue of 'dissent from Darwin' painfully obvious to you, yet you seem to avoid the names that he mentions of biologists opposing Darwinism. Why is that? It is not accurate to suggest that 'scientific Darwinism' is beyond criticism. You make it appeal bullletproof! But what criticism of it do you make, Terry? Or do you make none? This is one of the points that Cameron has been making; TEs tend to go silent about 'Darwin's errors.' In so far as they do not criticise Darwinism, they are guilty of corroborating with the ideology of 'scientism'. You write: "I will not hesitate to take on the scientific errors and misstatements in the interest of the truth." If you'll please excuse me, Terry, I just haven't seen you do this wrt Darwinism. Do you or would you back up your lack of hesitation to take on scientific errors in Darwinism with actual published texts? No doubt you are in a position to be able to publish something on this topic. Going further, you write something that is entirely on-side with what I'm promoting. You write: "I too wish that the spokespersons for evolution would acknowledge non-Darwinian mechanisms." As far as neither you nor any other TE is a 'spokesperson' for evolution, i.e. in so far as so very few TEs are actually biologists, it would seem to be a moot point that you acknowledge non-Darwinian mechanisms. What do you call those non-Darwinian mechanisms, Terry? Please give them a name and let them breathe! We are looking to go beyond a 19th century scientific theory and the ideology that has 'emerged' with it. But the language of TEs doesn't seem to highlight anything other than Darwinism, Darwinism, Darwinism as a legitimate ideology in biology. Who would you highlight instead of Darwin; Dobzhansky, Fisher, Denton, Behe, Gould, Dawkins...? Isms can be applied to all of their names as well. Will you do it? Please excuse Terry, but from my academic fields (eg. sociology of science) this doesn't seem like rocket science either. A person can be 'programmed' to tow Darwin's line by their education. Those today who are looking to the future, however, are not hitching their wagons to a 19th century scientific worldview. It is the failure to adopt a 21st century view of science, through the lens of history, philosophy and sociology of science (HPSS), that exposes the backwardness of those who appeal to 'Darwinism' as if it is something new or fit for discovery of the reality of natural, social or cultural things today. Gregory   ________________________________ From: Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> To: ASA <asa@calvin.edu> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 8:16:35 AM Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry 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 __________________________________________________________________ Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php

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 16:59:30 2009