Cancer and Evolutionary Theory

I rather doubt EnV are paying close attention to this discussion or my thread on G+… given that I don’t see any problem or feel that there is anything raised by Jon_Garvey they wouldn’t be able ot offer response.

Probably not anymore, since we are fundamentally boring. But EvN based all of the following articles on this thread, so wiping the slate clean by assuming that they aren’t paying attention doesn’t follow:

From Joshua Swamidass, a Gratuitous Drive-by Hit
Jonathan Wells September 22, 2016 1:58 PM

An Omission in Our Coverage of Dr. Joshua Swamidass and His New Argument Against ID
David Klinghoffer September 20, 2016 3:34 PM

Does Cancer Build Anything New? A Response to Josh Swamidass
Ann Gauger September 20, 2016 3:29 AM

Computer Scientist Joshua Swamidass Argues: Cancer “Casts Serious Doubt” on Intelligent Design
Evolution News & Views September 19, 2016 4:11 AM

They obviously are (or were) paying attention, or no articles at all would have appeared. As well, Gauger’s point-by-point response is drawn directly from a post made here by Swamidass on 9/13, and his reply to Garvey appeared less than 24 hours afterward. Gauger’s reply six days later takes into account the first but not the second, which happened to rebut her points prior to her even making them.

So, since Gauger conceivably could have rebutted the answers Swamidass gave to Garvey, she is off the hook? Isn’t this a pretty egregious case of cherry-picking facts to buttress her case?

As a former journalist, it’s pretty clear to me what EvN has done here. But … if you don’t see it by now, I’m not sure I can help you.

Edit: “buttress your case” changed to “buttress her case”

The article by Wells is not relevant at all since he clearly states in it he is not going to get involved.

The ‘Omisson’ article is further an irrelevance as it’s a correction to a previous article.

The other two are probably from different authors and are direct responses to Swamidass.

I find no case in any of this that they were deliberately avoiding a post by another member of this group but have already noted it warrants response.

Of course I concur with this. I think most scientists (including atheists) agree too. That is why there are journals seeking to extend what we know of evolution to explain more and more of what we find in biological organisms (PNAS and Molecular Biology and Evolution, for example) . If what was proposed in established science was “sufficient” no more scientific work in evolution would be happening.

Absolutely not. Agreeing with a truism does not place us in the ID camp.

Moreover, as a Christian, I believe that humans have immortal souls: something that cannot be produced by evolution. So even if we derinve a complete and correct scientific understanding of evolution, it still is not “sufficient” to explain the totality of life.

There are differences between ID and the rest of this, but the “sufficiency” of modern evolutionary theory is not where the divide lies. Sorry.

2 Likes

In that case, as I said, I can’t help you. There are such things as standards in journalism. If a website wants to put “News” in its title, it should be aware of them. Good luck with your project.

1 Like

So you concur that the current theory of evolution isn’t giving the best account for everything found in biological organisms?

If so, then you are just as much at odds with current scientific consensus as are ID proponents.
If not, then you are in line with that scientific consensus and at odds with what is proposed by ID.

By saying you would be in the same position as ID proponents I’m saying you’d be in the position that the current theory of evolution as proposed in established science is insufficient to give the best account for everything found in biological organisms.

The soul is not generally proposed as a ‘biological organism’.

I’m not seeking your ‘help’ and am aware there are standards in journalism from abysmally low standards to higher standards.

Nuff said .

I agree, it does not seem like they intentionally ignored the article. It appears the real situation is much worse. They just did not read it, even though it was published for several days before their response. Which is why I pointed out that this does not appear to be about science at all, but “something else.” If it was about the science, they would have taken the time to understand the position first. That was not a priority, as should be obvious.

And the Wells article is relevant, because Wells is on the record disputing mainstream science’s understanding of cancer. His protest of a “drive-by-hit” is about just a direct quote from a published article of his. I like Well’s article because it makes my point. If many ID arguments are true, most everything we know about cancer is false. Wells actually seems to agree with this point. I would also add that Gauger’s article seems to make point even more clearly, because her characterization of cancer is widely different than how cancer biologists understand cancer. As I explained to @Jon_Garvey

Ann does not seem to know this, and presents a different view. She writes:

Imagine that the oil in your car’s engine turned to sludge. The finely tuned machine will not respond well, even if the sludge is “novel,” an “innovation” in the system.
Does Cancer Build Anything New? A Response to Josh Swamidass | Evolution News

Interesting hypothesis. Turns out to be entirely false. Obviously so.

If this is the ID conclusion about cancer (as Wells and Rossiter independently seems to assert) I’m happy to report that my original point is even more clear. To accept many ID arguments is to reject large parts of what we have learned about cancer.

The current theory is not giving the “best” account because we are adding to it every day. The theory tomorrow is better than the theory today. This is exactly expressing the current scientific consensus.

I would add that ID has yet to add a single useful contribution to our understanding of biology. After 25 years of trying, none of their theories have panned out. None have been pragmatically useful. Given this track record, I doubt ID will ever be part of a better theory of evolution in the future.

This is not to say that science can ever give us a “complete” understanding of our world. Every scientist knows that we only seek to make provisional explanations of part of the world. Perhaps the confusion here is that you do not know how mainstream scientists understand their work?

Why do you think EvN would be obliged to read and/or respond to every article on an internet blog?

You have previously retracted your representation of Jonathan Wells on this very blog and stated that if you had the chance to re-do the initial article you would remove all mention of ID. Given this your response here seems to be going back on those statements.

I have already pointed out that the main article from EvN, in my view, is the response from Gauger. The other, again on my view, have little relevance to the issue of your initial post on here.

I have also already stated I’m not competent to evaluate the science but what I can evaluate is whether or not I think how members on this blog speaking of ID would be conducive or not to constructive dialogue. My view on that is most definitely not.

What you say is pure semantics… each day we have the best account of the theory… ID’s position is that on no day does established science provide any best account but a poor account. To that you do not concur.

ENV is not required to respond to every article in a forum. No one is saying that.

However, if they choose to write several articles critiquing a scientific idea, it behooves them to understand the scientific idea they critique. In this case, they decided to write several articles critiquing something about which they have little understanding. They have a right to do this, but it only makes them look uninformed.

You say you were reading ENV to fact check them. This is a great opportunity. They are wildly wrong on so many facts in this exchange it is hard to know where to start.

Yes, language is about semantics. It is about meaning.

I do agree that science, even when it is correct (as I believe evolution is), is only an incomplete (and in this respect poor) account of the world.

Where are disagreement lies is I do not think ID is offering a coherent account of the world. I prefer the YEC and Reasons to Believe model to ID, because they are at least trying to propose model’s of God’s action. ID studiously avoids this. With this strategic decision, it is impossible to imagine ID providing (even in principle) an account of the world (let alone a good account).

1 Like

I’m not aware of where you have produced a response - on the science - to Ann Guager’s article or to that of the article provided by Wells. Can you provide these?

Do you agree or disagree with this statement:

Established science is wrong with respect to the proposed mechanism by which evolution works

As for YEC it is such a laughably ridiculous anti-science position that it warrants no attention at all by any serious scientifically minded person, let alone a scientist.

Yes and no. As I have already explained, there is a lot correct, but it is not completely correct. That is why we do research. Moreover, I know that God has been involved, and science does not propose mechanisms for this involvement (nor can it) so it will always be incomplete.

About Gauger and Jonathan Wells, I’ll reiterate my response tonight when I have a bit more time. Or you could just reread this thread again.

Talk to you soon @Rational_Theist_Matt, and I’m glad you are here.

It is sad you would say this. I have a great deal of respect for @Paul_Nelson, Todd Woods and John Sanford. Many others too are thoughtful people, even if they are ultimately wrong.

And if you feel this way, why are you part of the ID movement? They are very clear that YEC is in their camp: Debating Common Ancestry | Evolution News and Cornelius Hunter is one of their regular contributors too, and he is a well known YEC.

So you disagree with this statement:

Scientific theories of Earth history and biological evolution are fundamental to understanding
the natural world, are supported by extensive evidence, and are non-controversial within the
scientific community. These principles of scientific understanding must be central elements of
science education.

EvN does not concur with this statement,.

As I have already expressed to you I am not part of the ID movement but, rather I am a theistic evolutionist who finds the current description by established science of the mechanism for evolution to be contrary to Christian theology i.e. natural selection.

That someone is blatantly wrong on X doesn’t mean they are wrong on A, B and C. That doesn’t mean they should be given serious consideration on X.

1 Like

Good point. Sorry @Rational_Theist_Matt. It is just a little disorienting when you seem to be arguing for their point of view. If your concern is the theology, can you explain that some more?

What exactly is your theological objections? Science itself makes no theological claims, but perhaps you are concerned that it does not directly reference God’s action or purpose? This would be another place where I think evolution is not complete, because it does not tell us the whole story.

Recently, an interesting discussion ensued on this point on another site:

Dr. Joshua Swamidass, a theistic evolutionist, joined us recently at TSZ. I think the following comment of his will lead to some interesting and contentious discussion and is worthy of its own thread:

… if we drop “Darwinian” to just refer to the current modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, you are right that the scientific account does not find any evidence of direction or planning. I agree with you here and do not dispute this.

So the question becomes, really, is it possible that God could have created a process (like evolution) with a purposeful intent that science could not detect? I think the answer here is obvious. Of course He could. In fact, I would say, unless He wanted us to discern His purpose, we could not.

In my view, then, evolution has a purpose in creating us. Science itself cannot uncover its purpose. I find that out by other means.
The purpose of theistic evolution | The Skeptical Zone

And then ensuses an entertaining conversation (>650 comments so far) where an atheist (keiths) eloquently argues that (1) my position is consistent with mainstream science and (2) my position is logically possible. Probably the most important comment from me is this…

I do not know how God directed evolution, but there are several possible answers.

Perhaps (as Ken Miller muses), God tweeks mutations through manipulating quantum fields.

Perhaps (as Michael Behe argues), God encodes all the required information in the initial conditions of the Big Bang.

Perhaps (as Francis Collins hypothesizes), God sent an asteroid to kill of the dinosaurs to prepare the way for mammals, and then for us. Of course, there are an uncountable number of historical contingencies like this by which God could direct evolution, without ever leaving a signature in DNA for purpose.

Perhaps (as Owen Gingerich alludes), God miraculously inspires some mutations.

Perhaps (as the Molinist explains), God accesses all possible realities and chooses to instantiate the one that produces us.

Perhaps (as the Reformed theologians posit), God does everything through predestination, there is no more conflict with evolution than there is in our perception of free will.

Which of these is it? Or some combination of multiple? Or something I haven’t listed? I do not know. Frankly, I do not really care. What is clear to me is that there are several logically and scientifically consistent ways of resolving the puzzle. Of course, none of these models appears to be detectable to science. So all of these models leaves me with my main claim:

Evolution is purposeful (in my view), but science cannot detect its purpose. The purpose of theistic evolution | The Skeptical Zone

Later on, Keiths took to defending Molinism as a logical possibility (even though he still has his objections from theodicy). And I added.

I wanted to just remind everyone that we are not the first people to think about these issues. I think one idea particularly important (and to which I am drawn) that I think resolves this paradox is Molinism. This, of course, is exactly what Keiths is talking about. Molinism - Wikipedia

This could explain how things that are “random” can still be purposeful. The proposal here is that God has full knowledge of all possible worlds, and then chooses to actualize the “best possible” world. From our point of view, evolution still looks random (and still even could be fundamentally random), but God exerts His will by choosing the reality that leads to us. This proposal resolves several key challenges.

  1. It solves the logical problem of theodicy.
  1. It resolves the conflict of free-will vs. predestination
  2. It makes clear that evolution, even if intrinsically random, can be purposeful and predetermined.
  3. It is not mutual exclusive with other mode’s of divine action.
  4. It explains why we see a world governed by natural laws.

The purpose of theistic evolution | The Skeptical Zone

So, with all this out there. What exactly is your theological objection to mainstream science’s understanding of evolution?

(@eddie look! I’m talking about divine action!)

1 Like

I totally agree with that statement. There is nothing theologically or scientifically to disagree with it.

Now, to anticipate your confusion, I totally disagree with the assertion that science’s understanding of our origins is the complete story. Even though science does not detect God’s action or purpose, does not mean it does not exist. I dispute “scientism” (the notion that science is total view of the world) entirely while finding my peace with science, which has proven to find helpful (but partial) understandings of our world

2 Likes