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

Cameron,

With David's response (and then your counter response) and the renewed
discussion of front-loading, the discussion has come back around
again. I have been mulling over a response now for over a week. I am
confident that you won't be satisfied because my notion is deeply
rooted in my theology. I do think, contra Gregory, that it reflects a
very deep integration of faith and science. I am also confident that
if you grasp my view here and accept it that you will agree with
assessment about biological evolution.

Also, I find your distinctions unhelpful. Concurrence is the needed
word that is distinct from cooperation and guidance but you don't like
that word. Also, as you define things, indeed, I mean guidance and
cooperation. There is no creaturely ability that is able to function
without God's involvement. His involvement makes a difference at all
levels: sustaining the being of the creature, sustaining laws and
properties, and locally contributing to the outcome. God's role,
because of his faithfulness, is such that the outcome is describable
by the approximations that we call scientific law.

It is good to see that David and I are giving you the same answers for
the most part. We have arrived at our perspective "independently",
i.e. our views are not derivative from each other in any way. However,
we do faithfully, I think, represent the Calvinistic and Reformed
perspective embodied in the Westminster Confession of Faith and
Catechism which speak quite plainly of these matters.

George is correct in asserting that the sovereignty of God is the
major undergirding idea here. I'm not sure his discussion of mediate
vs. immediate action is particularly relevant. I even think that he
overstates the case in characterization of Hodge and I'm not sure we
claim Zwingli especially when it comes to ideas concerning the
sacraments. Hodge's comments reflect the idea that special grace
(conversion, sanctification, etc.) always involves the direct action
of the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that there are not means:
scripture, preaching, sacrament, etc. but that if regeneration occurs,
it's because the Holy Spirit has acted in an immediate way.

Okay. All of this is prefatory to my real answer.

The fundamental starting point is with the doctrine of God (theology
proper). Several attributes of God are particularly relevant for this
discussion. God is omnipresent. God is immense. God is omnipotent. God
is simple. God is self-existent (aseity). I don't know how many of
these need explaining, but the basic idea is that God is everywhere
and his full being is everywhere and he is not limited by space. It's
not as if part of God is here and part of God is there. Even "after"
God created the world he is everywhere. That means the full being and
power of God is present "in, with, and under" every creaturely entity,
every quark, electron, molecule, cell, organism, mountain, planet,
galaxy, etc.

Now we must be quick to say that this does not mean that everything is
God. The Creature is not God. We are not pantheists. Not even
panentheists. The Creature exists separately from God. But not
independently from God. Only God is self-existent. But the creature is
dependent. Radically dependent. If God would stop his work in
maintaining the creature, the creature would cease to exist. (Talk
about "making a difference.") Nontheless, everywhere the creature and
all the parts of the creature is (most creatures are not simple but
are made of parts), God is there in all of his fullness.

Of course, this is all incomprehensible. That's why the theologians
call these the incommunicable attributes of God. We don't share them.
We can barely grasp their meaning. Even talking about them should make
us nervous. But since God appears to us and tells us that he is these
things, then we proceed. And we base our thinking about the creation
on this revelation.

One thing that it does mean is that all our language about artisan and
artifact, artist and creative work, guiding a boat like the a pilot
guides the boat, concurring the way a politician concurs, etc. falls
woefully short. The carpenter and saw analogy brought up before
captures some of what is meant by concurrence or cooperation, but with
God, the saw owes its on-going existence to the carpenter, is fully
filled up by the being of the carpenter, every quark, atom, molecule
that makes up the saw is filled with and empowered by the carpenter.
There is NOTHING in our experience as "creators" and "governors" that
is like this. The artifact and creative work exist apart from the
artisan and artist. The artisan and artist are dependent on the
objective properties of the tools of their craft.

I trust you can see where I am going with this. You spoke about
"angels pushing planets". While I'm not so sure that that's the most
felicitous expression, I'm not as dismissive of the notion as you
suggested "others" in our group are. God in his omnipotent,
omnipresence enables his creation at all levels (sub-atomic, atomic,
molecular, macrosopic, systems). The creature would not work apart
from this enabling power, the creature would not have its properties
or its interactions with with other creatures apart from this enabling
power, and in the process he guides and governs what the creature does
so that the outcome of the creature's action is exactly what God
wants. His guidance and governance is such, in his sovereign will,
that each creature acts according to the properties God gives it:
necessary, contingent, or free.

So molecular motions and chemical reactions are empowered by God (who
is "in, with, and under" the atoms and molecules involved). That fact
that we can predict their outcome as a result of scientific discovery
does not mean that they are unguided, ungoverned, unenabled,
independent, or autonomous. It also does not mean that God isn't doing
anything that makes a difference.

The extension to evolutionary processes is obvious.

So Dawkins (and Cameron for that matter) may say that God isn't doing
anything, but if what I say above here is true, then they couldn't be
more wrong. The task of the scientists is "think God's thoughts after
him", i.e. to find out in terms of secondary causes how God created
and governs the world. The scientist makes no claims about how God
interacts with the world. Asa Gray's criticized Hodge's "What Is
Darwinism?" (and Darwin himself) for not knowing better. As I've
stated before I'm not even sure how you would tell the difference
between an "irregular" God-governed action that leads to some
evolutionary innovation and one that is part of the "regular" God-
governed action.

And again, because God's guidance, cooperation, and concurrence is
present in all that happens, the fact that something is describable by
secondary causes in no way means that God is not involved. What this
means is that the science of the theist and the science of the atheist
may look very similar as long as they only talk about secondary
causes. This also means that we can be indifferent as Christians to
the science. Let the chips fall where they may. It doesn't matter. God
is still the ultimate originator, sustainer, and governor.

I also want to make it clear that I'm not making any claims on the
details of God's interactions in these processes. Because of the
incomprehensibility of God's omnipresence and immensity, I am fully
willing to accept that all this may not be accessible to the human
mind. That we say "God governs all his creatures and all their
actions" is sufficient.

On a side note: I have been looking again at Denton's book. I'm
finding that "front-loaded" is not exactly the term I would use to
describe his ideas. It seems more in tune with notions of the
anthropic principle. He sees himself as being in line with Paul Davies
and Stuart Kauffman. Thus, the world is created with laws, constants,
components, etc. that produce carbon, liquid water, things necessary
for life, that principles of self-organization result in the emergence
of life and it's steady evolution. I think it would be a mistake to
put his view in the category of "necessity". None of this is really
that incompatible with the Darwinian story as long as the
contingencies of Darwinism are understood to be constrained by the
geometry, physics, chemistry, etc., i.e. not everything is possible,
but only those things that fall within the parameters of the way
things are (or the way things were created). Thus, Denton doesn't seem
to insist that it be "us" that resulted but something like
"us" (mammalian, bipedal, large-brained, etc.). Front-loading in
Denton's sense doesn't really get us anywhere in my opinion.
Certainly, guidance would be needed in Denton's program to get to the
specifics of the divine plan as recorded in scripture or the unique
creation that we have today.

TG

On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Cameron Wybrow wrote:

>
>
> Terry:
>
> I never said that #4 was not possible. But as I said to others who
> proposed it, it's really a subset of #3, since it accepts guidance,
> even if the guidance is indetectable.
>
> I find your final paragraph incomprehensible. Not the English
> prose, which is fine, but the notion expressed in it. It seems very
> close to what David Campbell is saying.
>
> If God's "guidance" in chemical reactions means only that God
> "powers" the basic laws of charge, etc., and then the particles,
> under the guidance of these laws, merely act "naturally", and
> attract or repel each other, etc., then I have no problem with your
> view, but I think that "guidance" is a misleading term for it, too
> far from the everyday use of the word and hence liable to confuse
> people.
>
> If God's "guidance" means what would normally be meant by "guidance"
> in everyday life, i.e., God literally guides or steers *a particular
> electron* to join up with *a particular atom* to form *a particular
> compound*, i.e., God is in effect *constructing that particular
> compound at that particular point in time and space*, then I think
> such "guidance" is entirely redundant, since the natural laws God
> has established can accomplish every detail of the action without
> any "guidance". As I said to George, "co-operation" of that sort
> seems as ludicrous as to say that even though I am pushing the gas
> pedal on my car and it is going 60 mph, someone must *also* run
> alongside my car at 60 mph and push the car along, or the car will
> stop moving. Either the internal combustion engine is enough to
> exhaustively explain the motion of the car, or it isn't. Either the
> laws of charge and so on are enough to exhaustively explain the
> capture of hydrogen electron by a chlorine atom, or they aren't. If
> the laws are sufficient, then God doesn't "guide" anything; he
> merely powers the laws. If the laws are insufficient, then God
> would indeed be needed to "guide" each particular chemical reaction,
> everywhere in the universe. But others here have ridiculed that
> conception as "angels pushing the planets". And when ID suggests
> anything like that, it is scornfully called "God of the Gaps".
>
> Terry, the terminology of "guidance" that you and David Campbell are
> using is *just not clear*. I am trying to get you to see that is it
> not clear. And I am trying to get you to see that this lack of
> clarity harms TE generally, and limits its "drawing power" in the
> wider world. Whatever may be the faults and defects of ID theory,
> its writers are more in tune with common language than TE writers
> are, and, as Aristotle and Wittgenstein in different ways make
> clear, it is necessary to respect the virtues of common language --
> when it is used coherently, that is -- in order to think out even
> the difficult and abstract problems in philosophy. The same applies
> to theology. Metaphors and analogies are necessary in theological
> discourse, but when they must be used, the "anchor word" of the
> metaphor or analogy ("guidance", ''chance", "force", "will", etc.)
> must be employed in the way that it is employed in everyday speech;
> otherwise the metaphors and analogies will confuse more than they
> help. The way that you and David Campbell are using "guidance"
> confuses more than it helps. I suggest that you find another word
> for the concept you are trying to express.
>
> Cameron.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu
> >
> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 6:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry
>
>
>> To me it's a false choice. But as I keep saying...God doesn't need
>> to do anything special. I guess that means I'll turn into Dawkins
>> and Coyne.
>>
>> But I reject your inference that that means I don't believe that
>> God is guiding the process.
>>
>> In reality the only reason I accept this distinction between
>> theology and science is that it seems that we all share the same
>> science no matter what we believe to be the underlying primary
>> causal reality. In my case -- God. In Dawkin's case -- the
>> autonomous universe itself.
>>
>> You really do seem to be stuck in your three options: chance,
>> necessity, or guided. It appears that my #4 (guided that looks and
>> feels just like #1 in every respect) is not possible in your mind.
>>
>> I will grant that if my theology is wrong and that there really are
>> unguided processes, then the only option open to Christians is
>> your #3. But if my theology is correct then #1 and #4 are
>> indistinguishable except in the metaphysics.
>>
>> For what it's worth in light of your previous comment about Boyle
>> and Kepler, I understand laws of chemistry and physics exactly the
>> same way. God's active guidance is necessary even in molecular
>> motions and chemical reactions. There is nothing unique about
>> evolutionary biology in this regard.
>>
>> TG
>>
>> On Jul 9, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Cameron Wybrow wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, Terry, this doesn't clarify, because you don't say whether you
>>> intend "There is no such thing as an unguided process" as a
>>> theological statement, a philosophical statement, a scientific
>>> statement, or some other kind of statement.
>>>
>>> According to Randy Isaac, it can't be a scientific statement,
>>> because science cannot address the question of guided versus
>>> unguided.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing you mean it as a theological statement. Presuming
>>> that you do, what do you want me to do with it? It's an
>>> arbitrary statement. It may be that there are unguided processes
>>> in the universe, and that your theology is wrong.
>>>
>>> But we don't have to debate that to understand my point. Suppose
>>> -- for the sake of argument -- that everyone from all camps
>>> agreed that there were really unguided events in the universe,
>>> including mutational events. ID is saying that the hypothesis
>>> that such events could produce life, macroevolution, or man is
>>> very weakly substantiated from a strictly scientific point of
>>> view. Dawkins & Co. are saying that the hypothesis is strongly
>>> substantiated from a strictly scientific point of view. TEs, or
>>> some of them, appear to agree that the hypothesis is strongly
>>> substantiated from a strictly scientific point of view.
>>>
>>> Another way, and perhaps a more logically coherent way, of
>>> putting this would be as follows: suppose -- again for the sake
>>> of argument -- that all TEs became atheists or agnostics
>>> tomorrow. (Never mind why -- maybe the bones of Jesus were
>>> discovered. Make up any scenario you want.) In that situation,
>>> based on the public arguments TEs have made about evolution, I
>>> would say that 90% of TEs would become atheist or agnostic
>>> Darwinists, and would assert the power of chance to put together
>>> complex organic systems via macroevolution. Now suppose, on the
>>> other side, that all IDers became atheists or agnostics
>>> tomorrow. (Of course, some of them are already agnostics.) I
>>> would say that 90% of the IDers would still reject Darwinism.
>>> They might have no alternate explanation for how life or species
>>> came to be, and would thus have to regard origins as a mystery,
>>> but they would reject Darwinism -- and they would reject it as
>>> *scientifically* implausible.
>>>
>>> I might put it this way: if Collins and Miller ceased to believe
>>> in God, they would become Dawkins and Coyne. If Behe and Dembski
>>> ceased to believe in God, they would remain Behe and Dembski. Or
>>> at most they would become Berlinski.
>>>
>>> Would you agree with my assessment of what TEs would say about
>>> Darwinism if they became atheist/agnostic? And about IDers in
>>> the same situation? And does this help you to understand my
>>> threefold alternatives? Does it help you to see that there is a
>>> *real* difference between my Scenario #1 and all the other
>>> scenarios? And that the difference between ID and the Dawkins-
>>> Darwinists is over a real and important question about the powers
>>> of nature?
>>>
>>> Cameron.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu
>>> >
>>> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 4:48 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry
>>>
>>>
>>>> Just a quick answer to your closing paragraphs and I'm not sure
>>>> why this is not coming across clearly. More later, but perhaps
>>>> this will clarify.
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as an unguided process.
>>>>
>>>> TG
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Cameron Wybrow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> ________________
>>>> 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.
>>
>> ________________
>> 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.

________________
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 Sat Jul 18 18:33:45 2009