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

Sorry, I sent this before it was ready.
So I continue here with the post.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:05:56 -0600, wjp <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:
> Cameron:
>
> Let me just ask you one question.
>
> Consider the possibility of accepting that macroevolution has occurred,
> but rejecting that it occurred by "chance and necessity."
>
> By "necessity" I here mean what we presently perceive as the possibilities
> of
> a lawful nature. I don't think I need confine this to those possibilities
> envisioned by modern physics, but we might do so if required.
>
> Often the distinction is here made between fact and theory.
> One might say that we have a fact, and then we offer an explanation of the
> fact.
>
> But why not believe that this is so all the way down?
> What we today call a fact, was itself at one time or at a lower level, an
> explanation of a fact.
> It does not seem likely that there is any such a thing as a brute or a
> bare
> fact. It seems that such an account draws us inexorably into a kind of
> foundationalism, unless we simply confess and accept that all our ideas,
> including facts, are human ideas, and that the noumena are as inaccessible
> as they have always been, despite our sense of progress.
>
> We might ask whether there is some sort of hierarchy or methodology within
> which we can have some sense of greater or lesser certainty. Certainly
> we act as if there is. Science, as other enterprises, builds upon what
> has come before with, at least, the hope that it is sounder than what
> is now under construction. The hierarchy itself is, of course, subject
> to review and modification, but according to what principles. Again it
> seems we are led to a kind of foundationalism.
>
> This is a long way towards getting to my question. So here it is.
>
> Suppose one accepts that macroevolution has occurred because of the
> fossil record. This record is a collection of remnants, we presume,
> of dead animals. More than that, one accepts a certain dating of
> when these animals lived and the fossils formed. The dating methods
> would include a particular understanding of dynamical geology,
> properties of radioactivity, and various initial conditions.
> With this one begins to construct a theoretical history of the fossil
> record. Having sketched out a timeline, one seeks some mechanism to
> explain the record. Familiarity with other processes, leads one to
> presume that some sort of line must be drawn between them, something
> that connects the dots, so to speak. In this manner, we come to the
> conclusion that some kind of process is behind it all and that there
> is a general progress from "simple" organisms to more complex.
> By this and other lines of reasoning, we conclude that macroevolution
> has occurred.
>
> In this kind of reasoning we have presumed that a line must be drawn.
> It is a kind of Leibnizian presumption of continuity.
In accepting macroevolution we are already committed to such a presumption,
amongst others. Surely the dating methods have likewise committed us to
a kind of "naturalistic continuity."

The question is (since this is getting far to long) whether in accepting
macroevolution, we have simultaneously accepted, or at least gone a very
long way towards accepting Darwinian evolution?
It seems that we got to macroevolution without ever once considering whether
the processes involved were divine or intelligent. It was only when
we finally got to an explanation of macroevolution that we introduce the
possibility of divine or intelligent agency.

Now, I know you will say something like that we didn't need to
consider such agency in getting to macroevolution because the resources
of secondary causation were adequate to account for historical connectivity
of the fossil record (and its ancillary understandings). Those natural
processes provided a continuity and connectivity of the fossil record
(and geological history and radioactive properties).

It just does not seem obvious to me that having jumped gladly aboard the
ship that brought us to macroevolution, it is so facile to then jump
ship.

This is poorly expressed and ill-formed, I know. But I hope that there
is enough wheat here to make something of it.

bill
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:18:50 -0400, "Cameron Wybrow"
> <wybrowc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Bill:
>>
>> You raise some good questions here. Among other things, your point
> about
>> Newton and the Aristotelians is food for thought. However, I'll just
> deal
>> with one point, the one about Newtonian and Darwinian theory. I think
>> that
>> the parallel doesn't work.
>>
>> In the case of Newton, since the math works out, *something* about the
>> theory must be true. It has captured something of the reality of
> nature.
>> And even if the real cause that makes the math work out is not a "force
> of
>> gravity", but something mysterious and unknown, it is something which
>> works
>> *as if* there exists a "force of gravity". Either way, Newton's science
>> gives to nature a law-bound form. But if you take away the Darwinian
>> mechanisms from Darwinian theory, what have you got? You might have
>> fossil
>> evidence for macroevolution, but you have no theory how it works. It
>> would
>> be like having evidence that the Trojan War occurred -- an old ruined
> city
>> in Turkey -- but having no account of the sequence of events that led up
>> to
>> the war, the various motives and political negotiations, the course of
> the
>> war and why one side won rather than the other, and what subsequent
>> effects
>> the war had on the politics of the region. This would be to have facts
>> without meaning. Similarly, without clear mechanisms, evolutionary
> theory
>> is no longer a scientific theory of organic change, but merely a
>> collection
>> of empirical evidence hinting that organic change has occurred. Without
> a
>> demonstrated or at least very plausible mechanism, evolutionary theory
> is
>> a
>> kind of history (or rather prehistory), not a natural science.
>>
>> What makes a scientific theory scientific? I would argue that a
>> scientific
>> theory has to provide either an actually existing set of causal
> mechanisms
>> known to be capable of producing the results that we see, or a
>> mathematical
>> model with predictive power which works just *as if* there is some
> causal
>> mechanism ("force of gravity") producing the results that we see.
>> Darwinian
>> evolutionary theory has neither. The mathematics (of the sort expected
> in
>> science, i.e., the sort that enables the scientist to predict future
>> configurations) is almost non-existent, and the actually existing causes
>> on
>> which the theory is predicated (mutation and natural selection) are
> known
>> to
>> be capable (so far) of only microevolutionary change.
>>
>> So, using the term employed in your question, I would say that
>> "evolutionary
>> science" (as opposed to the mere fact of evolution) depends entirely on
>> the
>> proposed set of mechanisms. No mechanisms, no science. In the case of
>> Darwinian theory, I would say that the evidence for the mechanisms (by
>> which
>> I mean mechanisms of sufficient power and precision to achieve the
>> effects)
>> is not quite non-existent, but weak, and that's why I called Darwinian
>> theory weak science. And that's why I believe that ID people have the
>> right
>> and the duty to challenge Dawkins and Coyne not just on their theology
> but
>> on their science.
>>
>> Cameron.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bill Powers" <wjp@swcp.com>
>> To: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
>> Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 9:19 AM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry
>>
>>
>>> Cameron:
>>>
>>> What you say here I've been saying for years. I use the word "saying"
>>> because, despite my strong sense that this is true, I lack (and frankly
>>> lack the time to investigate) the necessary expertise to support it.
> It
>>> would require, I think, quite an extensive knowledge of the evidence,
>>> molecular genetics, etc. in order to make a well informed assessment.
>>>
>>> Instead, for over 20 years now, I rely upon the words of others, mostly
>>> Christians. For the most part I have the distinct feeling that I'm
>>> listening to politicians, always with a particular axe to grind, and,
>>> while often informative, never brutally honest and self-critical.
>>>
>>> On this list, most are persuaded that a Darwinian type evolution has
>>> occurred, and for some it appears as obvious as apples falling from
>> trees.
>>> In all cases, the theoretical support is not deductive, mostly relying
>>> upon the fallacy of affirming the consequent, and sometimes abductive
>>> (permitting evidence to modify theoretical details). In all cases,
>>> macroevolution is not up for sale. Some YECs have made a hay day of
>> these
>>> theoretical supports, but as I have repeatedly pointed out this is the
>>> nature of all science.
>>>
>>> Now you come and say that Darwinian evolution is "weak" science. You
>>> never doubt, it seems, that evolution has taken place. You simply
>>> question the means.
>>>
>>> One needs to ask what is the significance of questioning the means.
> When
>>> Newton proposed his theory of gravity, he refused to posit an opinion
> as
>>> to how gravity acted, taking such an effort to be a remnant of
>>> Aristotleian physics. Most of the questions that the Aristotelians
>> asked
>>> of him and other science are still unanswered and science has
>> "progressed"
>>> nonetheless.
>>>
>>> Naively I ask, to what extent does evolutionary science depend upon the
>>> specific means of biological evolution? Chromosome fusion and the like
>>> appear equally consistent with chance, lawfulness, and intelligence.
>>>
>>> You of all people on this list, Cameron, ought to know that science
>> gropes
>>> along, inching out along a limb, until it breaks off. Alternative
>>> theories always exist simultaneously, but there is generally a dominant
>>> theorical framework that guides research. Once the limb has broken
> off,
>>> the dominant trend shifts rapidly. For Darwinian evolution the limb
> has
>>> simply not broken off, perhaps, due to the nature of the science, it
>> never
>>> will. We may simply never amass enough evidence to expose its clear
>>> weakness. The same might be said of cosmology.
>>>
>>> So whether Darwinian science is "weak" or not, matters little to its
>>> practice and dominance, and all efforts to expose this weakness will
>> fall
>>> on deaf ears until it falls on its face. In the meantime, all you and
>>> others can do is to limp along, with little or no funding, pursuing a
>>> different theoretical thread, hoping the limb might break off, and be
>>> ready when it does.
>>>
>>> bill
>>>
>>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Cameron Wybrow wrote:
>>>
>>>> Terry:
>>>>
>>>> You write repeatedly about how God is involved in every single action,
>>>> every
>>>> event, at the local level, and that nothing happens without his will,
>>>> that
>>>> all natural causes and all free will decisions and all chance events
>> are
>>>> ultimately dependent on him, and you warmly cite the Bible and the
>>>> Westminster Confession in support of all this, and you wonder why I
>> would
>>>> infer a certain amount of personal piety on your part? :-)
>>>>
>>>> The rest we've been over.
>>>>
>>>> The reason we need to keep dragging the science into these debates is
>>>> that
>>>> Darwinian theory is weak science. Not just weak metaphysics, but weak
>>>> science. There's almost no evidence for it. There's evidence for
>>>> microevolution, but microevolution is merely the preamble to Darwinian
>>>> theory, not the real thing. The real thing is the claim that the
>>>> mutational
>>>> and selective factors that lengthen finch beaks can annihilate gills
>> and
>>>> replace them with lungs, while conveniently and simulteously replacing
>>>> fins
>>>> with feet, and conveniently and simulteously altering almost every
>> bodily
>>>> system in just the right way to be compatible with these changes. No
>> one
>>>> has ever established this claim. Macroevolution *presumes* that is
>> true,
>>>> and then, having assumed the conclusion that it prefers, goes out
> after
>>>> the
>>>> fact, trying to find out how it all happened. Darwinian evolution is
> a
>>>> doctrine in search of a detailed mechanism.
>>>>
>>>> That's not how science is supposed to work. Science is supposed to
>> work
>>>> out
>>>> theories in the light of a careful study of the actual working of
>>>> detailed
>>>> mechanisms. The Big Bang theory was worked out by people who had a
>> great
>>>> deal of detailed knowledge of nuclear physics, Newtonian celestial
>>>> mechanics, relativity, wavelengths, the Doppler effect, etc. But
>>>> Darwinian
>>>> theory cannot proceed in this normal scientific manner, because it
> does
>>>> not
>>>> know any of the detailed mechanisms. It thus has to make a more
>>>> extensive
>>>> use of *a priori* reasoning than any science has done since the
>>>> Scholastic
>>>> science of the Middle Ages.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, where TE says, "Darwinian evolution is one of the greatest of
> all
>>>> scientific achievements, ranking up there with Newton and Pasteur, as
>>>> certain as the fact of gravity, as the existence of atoms, etc.", ID
>>>> throws
>>>> down the gauntlet to the Darwinians, saying, "Show us how it was
> done."
>>>> No
>>>> Darwinian has picked up the gauntlet yet. I will believe that
>> Darwinian
>>>> evolution is a truly scientific theory when the books and articles --
>> the
>>>> ones proposing detailed genetic mechanisms for specific major
>>>> morphological
>>>> transitions -- start appearing. At that point Darwinian speculations
>>>> will
>>>> be potentially testable, hence truly scientific.
>>>>
>>>> Does this mean that TE is wrong to speculate about the theological
>>>> implications of evolutionary theory? Not at all, as long as TE people
>>>> understand why ID people hang back from such speculations. It is
>>>> *necessary* to speculate about the theological implications of
>> Newtonian
>>>> or
>>>> Einsteinian theory, because we have confirmed that nature works the
> way
>>>> that
>>>> Newton and Einstein said it did. It is not necessary, but only
>>>> *optional*,
>>>> to speculate about the theological implications of Darwinian theory,
>>>> because
>>>> we have not confirmed that nature has the power to create radically
> new
>>>> body
>>>> plans, as Darwin said it did. When that confirmation is in, ID people
>>>> will
>>>> join TE speculations with much more enthusiasm.
>>>>
>>>> Cameron.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry M. Gray"
>>>> <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
>>>> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 6:09 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Cameron,
>>>>>
>>>>> You mistaken me for a pious person. However, I do think that the
>>>>> picture
>>>>> that I paint here is consistent with what scripture teaches, that
> God
>>>>> is
>>>>> active in every event even the rising of the sun every day. If
> trying
>>>>> to
>>>>> follow scripture where leads makes me overly pious, I guess I'll
> wear
>>>>> the
>>>>> label.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know why you brought in the idea of God striking down the
>>>>> wicked
>>>>> man. As far as I'm concerned all that I say could be said of any and
>>>>> every lightening strike whether or not it has any apparent role in
>> any
>>>>> other chain of events.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was reluctant to say what I said about ID because I figured you'd
>>>>> zero
>>>>> in on it as you did. Nonetheless, you yourself are an example-- you
>> keep
>>>>> insisting on some activity from God that makes a difference.
>>>>> This is where we are at an impasse. God's activity always makes a
>>>>> difference--it's part of his governing activity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I fully understand what you and Denton and Behe and Dembski and
>>>>> Darwin and Dawkins mean about *really* unguided processes. I just
>> don't
>>>>> think that such things exist. Period. I assume by *really* that what
>> we
>>>>> mean is "ultimate", i.e. with respect to God's activity, i.e.
> primary
>>>>> causes. Such an idea may well be at the heart of Darwin's personal
>>>>> views.
>>>>> But Darwin's personal views could well be quite heterodox and even
>>>>> wrong.
>>>>> If that is what he means, then he's stepping outside the boundaries
>> of
>>>>> science and confusing primary and secondary causes. Asa Gray pointed
>>>>> this
>>>>> out almost at the beginning of the discussion about whether or not
>>>>> Darwinian ideas are consistent with orthodox Christianity, and he
>>>>> pointed
>>>>> out Hodge's mistake in not recognizing this confusion on Darwin's
>> part.
>>>>> Most theistic evolutionists since have followed this distinction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now in their better moments Dembski and Behe will concede that a TE
>>>>> view
>>>>> as I articulate it is possible and is fully consistent with
> Christian
>>>>> orthodoxy. I have it on video from the ASA symposium at Messiah a
> few
>>>>> years ago. I've been tempted to make the clip and distribute when we
>>>>> get
>>>>> into these spats. Theologically, we're not that far apart. It would
>> be
>>>>> nice if we could focus our attention on the theological question. We
>>>>> are
>>>>> in full agreement in our antagonism toward Dawkins and the new
>>>>> atheists.
>>>>> I continue to ask--why do we need to drag the scientific claims into
>>>>> the
>>>>> debate? The scientific claims, while interesting at some level, are
>>>>> largely irrelevant to the debate we all have with the atheists. Why
>>>>> give
>>>>> them the extra ammunition of answering the scientific objections,
>> which
>>>>> they are largely successful in doing in my opinion, and then
> claiming
>>>>> victory in the theological/ philosophical debate?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't really understand why my view is some "third mode of divine
>>>>> action". It is the divine action that concurs with every creaturely
>>>>> action. The divine action is the primary cause; the creaturely action
>>>>> is
>>>>> the secondary cause. The chain of secondary causes can explain
> things
>>>>> at
>>>>> a given level. Indeed, the "chain" of secondary causes is
> established
>>>>> by
>>>>> the primary cause. But the chain of secondary causes (the scientific
>>>>> explanation when it comes to physics, chemistry, biology, etc.)
> tells
>>>>> us
>>>>> nothing about God's role. You seem to want to remove primary
>> causation
>>>>> from "normal" events (other than sustenance and continued provision
>> of
>>>>> endowed properties and laws). Indeed, the mysterious "extra" (sic)
>>>>> action
>>>>> cannot be incorporated into our scientific equations--to do so would
>> be
>>>>> to confuse primary and secondary causation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps some of your frustration comes from my unwillingness to
>> provide
>>>>> a
>>>>> precise explanation of how all this works. David Wallace's question
>>>>> about
>>>>> my paper (thanks, David, for having a look at it) perhaps gets at
>> this.
>>>>> Hodge's discussion of concurrence (drawing mostly on the Reformed
>>>>> scholastic theologian Francis Turretin) is interesting in that he
>>>>> distances himself from the the details, because in his view, it
>> creates
>>>>> as many problems as it solves. In distancing himself from the
>> doctrine
>>>>> of
>>>>> concurrence as articulated by the scholastics he steps back and
>> merely
>>>>> affirms what the catechism affirms about the doctrine of
>>>>> providence--that
>>>>> God governs all his creatures and all their actions. Hodge is saying
>>>>> that
>>>>> the scholastic doctrine says more than it should say. In other
> words,
>>>>> we
>>>>> don't know how all this works. Perhaps the knowledge of the "how" is
>>>>> limited to the Godhead. We can be assured, however, according to
>> Hodge,
>>>>> that whatever happens is under God's full control and that nothing
>>>>> happens apart from his will.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am quite content with that level of explanation. I'm probably a bit
>>>>> more sympathetic with some of the scholastics' theology than maybe
>>>>> Hodge
>>>>> is, so to answer David's question, I'm somewhere between #2 and #3.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "extra", the "wiggle room" that I'm willing to entertain is also
> a
>>>>> component of the radical individuality (a la Dooyeweerd) that I see
> as
>>>>> part of God's relationship with creation. Randy and I had a brief
>>>>> exchange about this a while back. Scripture declares that God calls
>> all
>>>>> the stars each by name (Psalm 147:4). I don't think it's too far-
>>>>> fetched
>>>>> to say he knows each quark, each electron, each atom, each molecule
>> by
>>>>> name. I would suggest that that individuality is largely
> inaccessible
>>>>> to
>>>>> our science and that it may well be rooted in the very nature of
>>>>> creaturehood itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> TG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 21 11:22:37 2009