Darrel R. Falk's Generous Review of Michael Denton's New Book

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

“This is an amazing book. As I see it, it wonderfully summarize a very real crisis that has been emerging in biology. The “selectionists,” those who have focused primarily on the gene and natural selection as the driving force for evolution, have after all these years come up against constraints that require rethinking elements of evolution. This book documents the reasons very well. Furthermore, despite the fact that this book emerges from within the Intelligent Design Movement and is published by the Discovery Institute, it is important to emphasize that the ideas contained here are consonant with work emanating from mainstream biology. For example Carl Woese, Nick Lane, Gunter Wagner, and Andreas Wagner have argued persuasively that our view of evolution has been far too gene-centric and that there is much more to the story. [The best quick review to demonstrate this, in my opinion, is Carl Woese and Nigel Goldenfeld’s Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 71:14-21 (2009)].”

Wow! These words sound as if they were written by me! But they are not from me; they are (if we rule out impersonation) from Darrel Falk.

@Relates

It looks like everyone wants to get on your band-wagon, Roger!

Eddie says it sounds like him; I was thinking it sounded like you.

Maybe you don’t have to fuss and fume so much anymore? You kindly sent me a copy of your book - - and I have finished reading it… I will be posting my review in a new thread soon!

George

[Henry (Henry Stoddard)]

I read the original book by Dr. Denton twenty-two years ago in seminary. I donated it to the Chesapeake Public Library last year. The book was good.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@gbrooks9

George,

Do not be misled. Although Eddie and I agree that Darwinism has its problems we definitely disagree on the solution. Denton, Wagner, and the others do not talk about the ecology.

Niche construction theory does as you might note in my book. Sy Garte has noted this and promised a study to discuss the future of evolutionary thought based on various alternative views including niche construction.

There are problems with the genetic only approach, but ecology is clearly the guide for evolution which is my concern.

[Sy_Garte]

@Relates

Sy Garte has noted this and promised a study to discuss the future of evolutionary thought based on various alternative views including niche construction.

It should be coming out in the March issue of PSCF, Roger.

[Jon_Garvey]

Yes, that is a positive review. I’d say it’s not only generous, but also rather courageous, given some of the flak Darrel received for his previous sympathetic review to Darwin’s Dilemma. It seems to me to raise some issues about the current state of Evolutionary Creation (at least as much as it does Intelligent Design), which since they’re too long to post about here, I’ve put on my blog for anyone who’s interested.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Sy_Garte,

Do I understand the nature of your article correctly?

What does PSCF stand for, when will the March issue be available, and how can we access it?

[Sy_Garte]

Roger,

The article is about the general extended evolutionary synthesis which includes niche construction. I confess to knowing very little about this or the ecology behind it, but I do think its important.

Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization of Christians who are scientists. I believe it is has an online publication as well as print, and I will send you a copy when it comes out (dont know the exact date), or I will post a link here to it.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie,

It doesn’t seem that Denton has any belief in a universal consciousness.

I would liken his views to a Universal UN-consciousness … where laws of nature roll the Universe forward … but with no conscious design at all.

Thoughts?

George

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

Eddie,

I watched one of the videos you recommended.

Conversations with Michael Denton: What Is Structuralism? | Evolution News

I don’t detect a trace of Consciousness in his view of natural order and the replication of natural order throughout the Universe.

George

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

Well, a video is better than nothing. But you should read the whole book. You should also look at all the videos. In one of them, I can’t remember which one, he says explicitly that his view of Types is entirely compatible with “intelligent design” by a conscious mind.

I will do some Google Books… but I’m thinking he is being a little poetic about the intrinsic properties of “design” that UNCONSCIOUS laws of nature can promote.

In my view, the only way you can have “design” is if you have consciousness or intention. I don’t believe the laws of nature are capable of either intention or consciousness. And as soon as we construe them as such, they become a form of cosmic deity.

George

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

The “laws of nature” need not be conscious for the Author of those laws to be so. Nobody says that Newton and Kepler did not believe in a conscious God because they believed the planets were governed by laws. Thus, if evolution turns out to be governed by laws rather than chance, it does not follow that there is no conscious God behind those laws.

@Eddie,

I know you are going to be surprised by this … but none of these reading projects have anything to do with my work or career. Google Books is the perfect compromise for a person in my situation.

I think it is all together clear that Denton does not think there is ANYTHING conscious behind the unconscious laws of nature. So while I appreciate the distinction you point out CAN BE MADE – the distinction seems utterly lost on Denton.

There is no Universal or Cosmic Consciousness for Denton – so there can be no Designer, no matter how we tumble the words around.

Your sentence: “Nobody says that Newton … did not believe in a conscious God because they believed the planets were governed by laws.” WELL SURE!

I hope you don’t think that I assume someone is an atheist as soon as they talk about the Laws of Nature.

But this is not what Denton is describing. He is describing a cosmos full of UNINTENTIONED design features … with no Designer.

George

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie

How amusing it is that, if I were to read “uninentional” or “unguided” into Dennis Venema’s or Darrel Falk’s accounts of Darwinian evolution, you would jump all over me for reading a metaphysical notion like “unintentional” into their purely scientific description of the evolutionary process, while you freely ascribe to Denton a metaphysical commitment (“unintentioned”) which he nowhere states or implies.

@Eddie,

Getting a long post from you is like getting hit on the head, repeatedly, with a very large book. I think everyone would benefit if you could figure out how NOT to have that affect on your correspondents.

If you want to make a difference in this discussion - - prove me wrong. I think it’s pretty clear there is very little I can do to convince YOU of anything. So I’m not really going to try.

IN CONCLUSION: We are still looking for a proponent of COSMIC Intelligent Design (let’s call it C.I.D.!) - - who believes there is a designer that isn’t the God of Abraham.

George