On Nov 14, 2009, at 3:34 AM, Schwarzwald wrote:
> Rich,
>
> I gave you the link to (at least part of) West's own discussion with
> Barr. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/clarity_and_confusion_stephen.html
> - I'd say you should give it a read if you haven't yet. It really
> is interesting.
>
> Anyway, I don't think West is referring to that single line from
> Miller's textbook, but from Miller's writings on this subject
> specifically - and as I said, I'm unaware of them, so I can't
> testify to the accuracy of West's claim here. Now, I will definitely
> agree that the transcript you provide has Miller claiming that
> "utterly unguided and without purpose" is not something science can
> say. But let me be specific: My point of bringing that claim up was
> not to say "Aha, Miller is crossing the bounds between science and
> philosophy". I don't care if Miller says that view is entirely
> philosophical - if that's the "compatibility" being offered, leave
> me out of it.
>
> I mention that only as an aside to the larger discussion, and with
> the qualification that I don't even know if it's a view Miller
> actually claims to hold. I do recall Ayala holding a similar view in
> the past, hence my recent (pleasant) surprise at his stated views at
> Templeton's site.
>
So as you see the specific examples the imputation of a wrong-headed
definition of what science thinks "random" is again disproven. One of
the reasons why I am very skeptical West and Logan Paul Gage are
accurately describing the views of people I don't know is that they
are getting completely wrong the views of people I do. Randy Isaac and
myself have had in the past a fairly long discussion of what it means
to be random particularly from a scientific viewpoint. (This is
analogous of the difference to what a scientist refers to as a theory
and the lay public does. To a scientist a theory is a well-tested
explanation of a set of phenomena. Here Miller is helpful in his book
Only a Theory.) In November 2007, Logan Paul Gage wrote a review of
the Alistair McGrath's Dawkin's Delusion.
> McGrath recounts surveys showing many scientists to be theists.
> Unfortunately, this does nothing to establish the compatibility of
> Darwinism and theism. Humans hold incompatible beliefs all the time.
> To see why Darwinism and theism are incompatible, consider random
> mutations and natural selection—the two elements of modern Darwinian
> theory. Random mutations are, well, random. By definition, random
> mutations are unguided. "Mutations are simply errors in DNA
> replication," according to University of Chicago biologist Jerry
> Coyne. "The chance of a mutation happening is indifferent to whether
> it would be helpful or harmful." If a mutation is harmful, the
> organism with the mutation will leave fewer offspring; but if the
> mutation is beneficial for reproduction, the mutated gene will be
> passed to many offspring. This is the "natural" selection part.
> Theistic Darwinists claim that this process creates life's diversity
> and is also "used" by God.
> While theists can have a variety of legitimate views on life's
> evolution, surely they must maintain that the process involves
> intelligence. So the question is: Can an intelligent being use
> random mutations and natural selection to create? No. This is not a
> theological problem; it is a logical one. The words random and
> natural are meant to exclude intelligence. If God guides which
> mutations happen, the mutations are not random; if God chooses which
> organisms survive so as to guide life's evolution, the selection is
> intelligent rather than natural.
> Theistic Darwinists maintain that God was "intimately involved" in
> creation, to use Francis Collins's words. But they also think life
> developed via genuinely random mutations and genuinely natural
> selection. Yet they never explain what God is doing in this process.
> Perhaps there is still room for him to start the whole thing off,
> but this abandons theism for deism.
> So there is a danger in the approach of theistic Darwinists such as
> McGrath. He is surely right that the religious and scientific
> worldviews are compatible. Harmony can be found. But this is not
> because theism can concede a materialist origin story and escape
> unscathed. Rather, it is because the materialist story is false and,
> further, is contradicted by mounting physical evidence in physics,
> chemistry, and biology.
Both Randy Isaac and myself quickly picked up on this. I said this on
list on November 20:
> We don't draw a distinction between them. But, we do it in the same
> way the Bible does not draw a distinction between Providence and so-
> called "ordinary events", even "random events". For example from 2
> Chronicles 18:
>
>
>
>> 27 Micaiah declared, "If you ever return safely, the LORD has not
>> spoken through me." Then he added, "Mark my words, all you people!"
>>
>> Ahab Killed at Ramoth Gilead 28 So the king of Israel and
>> Jehoshaphat king of Judah went up to Ramoth Gilead. 29 The king of
>> Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "I will enter the battle in disguise,
>> but you wear your royal robes." So the king of Israel disguised
>> himself and went into battle.
>> 30 Now the king of Aram had ordered his chariot commanders, "Do
>> not fight with anyone, small or great, except the king of Israel."
>> 31 When the chariot commanders saw Jehoshaphat, they thought, "This
>> is the king of Israel." So they turned to attack him, but
>> Jehoshaphat cried out, and the LORD helped him. God drew them away
>> from him, 32 for when the chariot commanders saw that he was not
>> the king of Israel, they stopped pursuing him.
>>
>> 33 But someone drew his bow at random and hit the king of Israel
>> between the sections of his armor. The king told the chariot
>> driver, "Wheel around and get me out of the fighting. I've been
>> wounded." 34 All day long the battle raged, and the king of Israel
>> propped himself up in his chariot facing the Arameans until
>> evening. Then at sunset he died.
>>
>
> So, by drawing a distinction and in essence denying God guides even
> random events, the Intelligent Design Movement denies Scripture and
> the providential care of God, just like Richard Dawkins. If Dawkins
> was there to observe he would say God didn't do it because it was
> "random". The author of Chronicles denies this.
>
> But, IDM just doesn't get this. Note this review of Alister
> McGrath's Dawkins Delusion ( http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/november/35.79.html
> ) and note how the reviewer denies the providence of God:
>
>
>> While theists can have a variety of legitimate views on life's
>> evolution, surely they must maintain that the process involves
>> intelligence. So the question is: Can an intelligent being use
>> random mutations and natural selection to create? No. This is not a
>> theological problem; it is a logical one. The words random and
>> natural are meant to exclude intelligence. If God guides which
>> mutations happen, the mutations are not random; if God chooses
>> which organisms survive so as to guide life's evolution, the
>> selection is intelligent rather than natural.
>>
>>
>> Theistic Darwinists maintain that God was "intimately involved" in
>> creation, to use Francis Collins's words. But they also think life
>> developed via genuinely random mutations and genuinely natural
>> selection. Yet they never explain what God is doing in this
>> process. Perhaps there is still room for him to start the whole
>> thing off, but this abandons theism for deism.
>
>
> One could also say that the Bible doesn't explain how God uses
> random events to His providential ends. Yet, I don't believe any IDM
> proponent would accuse the Bible of abandoning theism for deism.
> Both the Bible and evangelical TEs argue for the polar opposite of
> deism.
Randy Isaac said this:
> The November 2007 issue of Christianity Today includes a book review
> titled "Deconstructing Dawkins" in which author Logan Paul Gage
> critiques McGrath's book "The Dawkins Delusion." I don't think it's
> available online yet so let me just type in two paragraphs of the
> article which I think deserve discussion. My point is not to agree
> or disagree but to say that this is an articulation of a critical
> point of difference within our communities that needs to be clearly
> addressed.
>
> "While theists can have a variety of legitimate views on life's
> evolution, surely they must maintain that the process involves
> intelligence. So the question is: Can an intelligent being use
> random mutations and natural selection to create? No. This is not a
> theological problem; it is a logical one. The words random and
> natural are meant to exclude intelligence. If God guides which
> mutations happen, the mutations are not random; if God chooses which
> organisms survive so as to guide life's evolution, the selection is
> intelligent rather than natural.
>
> "Theistic Darwinists maintain that God was "intimately involved" in
> creation, to use Francis Collins's words. But they also think life
> developed via genuinely random mutations and genuinely natural
> selection. Yet they never explain what God is doing in this process.
> Perhaps there is still room for him to start the whole thing off,
> but this abandons theism for deism."
>
>
> This is essentially the same argument that Lee Strobel used on the
> radio a few weeks ago when he firmly but respectfully rebuked
> Francis Collins. Evolution is inherently random and without guidance
> and is therefore mutually exclusive with divine guidance, he said.
>
> Randy
Randy went on to correspond with ASA Fellow Francis Collins about this
and then write a letter to the editor of Christianity Today. I cannot
find the original letter but here is Evolution News and Views on
February 14, 2008 where DI member Logan Paul Gage response to it this
way:
> The January 2008 issue of Christianity Today contained a letter from
> Randy Isaac titled “Providence and Evolution.”
>
> In his critique of Alister McGrath’s The Dawkins Delusion? [“The CT
> Review,” November], Logan Paul Gage fails to distinguish between
> scientific randomness and metaphysical randomness. By insisting that
> these two concepts are inextricably linked, Gage concludes that
> McGrath (and Francis Collins) maintain a position that precludes
> divine providence. Evolution is not a purely random process,
> Ahem: something I never denied. But I interrupt.
>
> though as with all natural processes, there are underlying random
> events involved. But even if evolution were completely random, God’s
> action is not limited by randomness, just as human creative activity
> may involve random actions.
> Issac continues, illustrating his point and posing a question to me:
> The Bible records several instances when God’s guiding action was
> expressed through the casting of lots. Does Gage have a better
> explanation than McGrath and Collins have provided for how God
> carries out his sovereignty through means that appear to us as
> scientifically random? Randy Isaac Executive Director, American
> Scientific Affiliation Ipswich, Massachusetts
> Let’s tease apart the distinction Issac wishes to make between
> scientific (perhaps physical) andmetaphysical randomness. I have
> claimed not that all forms of evolution are incompatible with theism
> but rather that neo-Darwinian evolution is incompatible with robust
> theism. For to involve intelligence in the creative process, either
> random mutations or natural selection must be manipulated. And once
> you do that, you are no longer speaking of neo-Darwinism. In fact,
> you are speaking of some sort of guided evolution—a form of design.
> Back to randomness. I think Isaac’s distinction unhelpful. Consider
> Isaac’s own example: Does he really want to hold that the apostles’
> casting of lots was physically random but metaphysically determined?
> What would that even mean? Would it mean that the physical lot could
> have physically gone to anyone?
>
> While defending true randomness at first ("even if evolution were
> completely random, God’s action is not limited by randomness"),
> later Isaac avoids contradiction by claiming that the random
> mutations of neo-Darwinian theory are not truly random but rather
> only appear so from our limited vantage point. But notice that he
> had to abandon orthodox evolutionary theory to keep intelligent
> guidance. Thus, he unknowingly accepts my point and abandons his
> early distinction.
>
> Isaac would better serve his Christian community by being clear that
> in claiming that mutations only appear random, he denies neo-
> Darwinism. He is still an evolutionist, but of a very different sort
> than the neo-Darwinists who dominate our universities.
>
> If Isaac actually thinks an intelligent being can guide randomness,
> then it is up to HIM to explain how that works—not the other way
> around. I have claimed that it is impossible. Providence can
> certainly reign over random events; and Providence can certainly
> know the outcome of future contingents; but all that is different
> from saying that Providence can guide truly random events.
>
> “Even if evolution were completely random, God’s action is not
> limited by randomness,” wrote Isaac. While this may sound like he is
> coming to God’s defense, this is like saying that God is not limited
> by square circles. Providence is, of course, not limited by these
> things because they are contradictions, and hence they do not exist.
>
> As for having a better explanation than Collins and McGrath as to
> how Providence interacts with randomness, yes, I do. When
> intelligent beings direct events, the events are not random either
> physically or metaphysically, and thus the agency is potentially
> detectable. And events that appear random may or may not actually be
> random. They cannot be both random and non-random at once.
>
> As far as I know, Collins and McGrath don’t offer ANY such
> explanation as to how an intelligent being could guide random
> events. Collins’s The Language of God argues for neo-Darwinism and
> then slaps God on top without telling us what is left for Him to do.
> And while I have only read a few of McGrath’s numerous tomes, I have
> yet to find any detail as to how an event could be truly random and
> guided at the same time. Because I think such an explanation is
> impossible, I am not holding my breath.
>
ID proponents do not have a clue of how the word random is used in the
scientific context nor do they have a clue of what theory means nor
macroevolution. They take standard terms and abuse them and in turn
use this to slander people like our Executive Director and fellows.
This is why there isn't rapprochement between ID and TE, not because
there is much difference between us -- there isn't -- but because some
ID proponents behave in a shameful fashion like the above example. A
counter example is ASA President Walter Bradley. If all ID proponents
were like him there wouldn't be a problem.
Rich Blinne
Member ASA
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Nov 14 10:20:35 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Nov 14 2009 - 10:20:35 EST