Heya Cameron,
I'm not that interested in the "culture-war" talk either - my fault for
bringing up Ken Miller at all, even with the qualifications. It was just a
handy example of what kind of "compatibility" talk would be
ridiculous/absurd by my view, regardless of who is or is not actually
advocating it.
I'm fascinated about the talk of where these words have come from
(stochastic in particular) and what they mean now. But if there's one point
I want to stress to everyone here, particularly Rich Blinne, it would be
this.
I agree that "truly random", "truly unguided", etc is unscientific, and not
what any scientific theory does or can say (not while also remaining
'scientific' at least). But I think Cameron has made a very strong case in
the past that as far as Darwin was concerned, these things were *essential*
to his "theory" - such that, if you strip out these claims (on the grounds
that they are not scientific), you're left with a theory that, however
useful, is not what Darwin was driving at. Not by a longshot.
I'd further agree that "What TEs today intend is another matter, but that is
not what Darwin intended, nor what Mayr intended, nor what Gaylord Simpson
intended, nor what Carl Sagan intended, nor what Stephen Jay Gould
intended." And I see the greater problem here being that, at least if I take
Rich Blinne right, he regards all this as inconsequential. Meaning, it
doesn't matter if Sagan, Gould, Mayr, Dawkins, Coyne, etc, claim that
evolution is truly random and unguided (and this is a scientific statement),
or that science has shown evolution to be truly random and unguided, because
they're wrong, and that's that. I say a problem remains, and the problem
isn't that ID proponents are overreacting.
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>wrote:
> I don't want to get involved in the culture-war aspect of the post below,
> but perhaps I can provide a few philological notes that may be useful in
> clearing up some misunderstandings:
>
> First, regarding the English word "random". It may interest people to know
> that it probably originally comes from a French word meaning "gallop", and
> naturally came to apply to actions done at high speed. It also took on the
> sense of actions done impetuously or hurriedly, and from there to actions
> done carelessly, and from there, to actions done without aim or plan. (This
> is all from the full-sized, 16-volume Oxford English Dictionary.) In other
> words, "random" did not originally have anything to do with "chance" or
> "accident", and only came to have those associations later. This does not
> affect what I will argue below, but I think it is interesting nonetheless.
>
> Second, neither did the root of the word "stochastic" originally have
> anything to do with chance or accident (or "randomness" in the modern
> sense). "Stochastic" is from a Greek verb (stochazomai) pertaining to
> aiming at a target, and therefore was originally aligned with notions of
> intentionality or design; in modern science it is used with quite a
> different meaning, in some cases almost the opposite meaning, since
> "stochastic" processes involve many misses before they get a hit, or only
> achieve a hit through the collective action of large numbers. This usage of
> "stochastic" can be justified from the original Greek root in the following
> way: sometimes when we aim at a target we miss, and sometimes when we are
> trying to find an answer, we guess, and guesses can be wrong. (The Greek
> verb can also mean "guess", in intellectual matters.) Nonetheless, current
> usage conceals the teleological associations of the original root.
>
> Third, "random" may well have special senses in various special sciences,
> but the general modern usage of the word, again from the OED, is: "Not sent
> or guided in a special direction; having no aim or definite purpose; made,
> done, occurring, etc. at haphazard". It is this definition that Gage and
> West have in mind when they say that God cannot guide "random" events. If
> there are "random" events in the universe in this sense (and I am not saying
> that there are, but if there are), then by definition they cannot be guided
> by anyone -- not even by God. That follows from the definition. Hence the
> remark made below about God not being able to make a square circle. God
> cannot guide a random event if "random" is meant in the sense above.
>
> Fourth, God could of course guide *apparently* random events, events which
> from our observational point of view meet the criteria of the definition of
> randomness above, but which are in fact controlled. Thus, a mutation which
> gives a finch a longer beak might be caused by the striking of a finch
> genome by a "random" cosmic ray which is not really random, but either
> steered by God to hit the genome at that exact point, or perhaps was set up
> by God, from the beginning of creation, to strike the earth at that time and
> place, when God knew the finch would be there. Needless to say, Darwin
> would have called this cheating. It slips in design either via invisible
> steerings of God or by temporal remote control. This was not what he
> intended by his theory. What TEs today intend is another matter, but that
> is not what Darwin intended, nor what Mayr intended, nor what Gaylord
> Simpson intended, nor what Carl Sagan intended, nor what Stephen Jay Gould
> intended. "God-guided apparent neo-Darwinian evolution" is not the same as
> "neo-Darwinian evolution".
>
> Fifth, the Biblical passage quoted is given in English translation, and it
> does not appear that those who are employing it below (Randy or Richard or
> both; I'm not sure from all the layers of quotation and commentary) have
> taken the time to ascertain the original expression used which is here
> translated "at random". In the original Hebrew, it is said that the man
> strikes "in his wholeness". The word "wholeness" ("tom", long o) can also
> be translated as righteousness, purity, moral perfection, integrity, etc.
> It has nothing intrinsically to do with chance, randomness, etc. It is
> unclear why the Hebrew writer uses this phrase. It is possible that it
> means "innocently", i.e., not intending to hit the king specifically, and
> therefore that he hit the king by accident. But even if so, "by accident"
> does not mean exactly the same as "at random"; presumably the archer was
> aiming at *some* target, not just firing his arrow anywhere, hoping to hit
> something. "By accident", would suggest that maybe he was aiming at the guy
> next to the king, and hit the king instead. Thus, "at random" is an
> over-translation. The King James and Revised Standard have "at a venture",
> which would be better. But even this translation is questionable. Why
> would the archer's "innocence" be stressed here? Wouldn't an enemy archer
> *want* to hit the king, and knock out the motor of the opposing army? And
> this leads us to consider the Septuagint translation. The Greek Jews who
> translated this expression used the adverb *eustochos*, related to the verb
> *eustocheo*, which means "aim well (and therefore hit)". That is, the
> archer intended to hit the king, and, with a "well-aimed" shot, did so. So,
> if the Septuagint translators had our current Hebrew text, they must have
> interpreted it the noun *tom* as meaning something like "perfection" in a
> non-moral sense: "in his perfection", i.e., "in the perfection of his aim",
> he hit the king. I suspect that the Greek translators have hit upon the
> intended meaning of the original. But in any case, the translation "at
> random" is highly questionable, and should not be used as a "killer
> argument" in the way that it is used below. More generally, it is not
> safe to rely upon English translations of the Bible when a "loaded" word is
> involved.
>
> Sixth, I'm sorry, but I don't see where Randy or anyone else was
> "slandered" in Logan Gage's posts. Someone will need to point me to the
> spot.
>
> Cameron.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
> *To:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* asa <asa@calvin.edu> ; Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:20 AM
> *Subject:* Re: What my tiny little brain was thinking... [was Re: [asa]
> Two Amino Acid Difference in Gene May Explain Human Speech]
>
>
> 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)<http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/november/35.79.html%29> 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<http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/november/35.79.html> 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) and*metaphysical* randomness. I have claimed<http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4450>
> *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 20:48:14 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Nov 14 2009 - 20:48:14 EST