I heard that in Social Newtonianism, two people can be dropped off a building at the same time, and regardless of the size of their egos, they should both hit the ground together. 
7 Likes
I personally practice Copernicanian astronomy, but hope someday to get a crude telescope and move up to Galileonian astronomy.
4 Likes
We already have “social Newtonism.” It is called seatbelts and air bags, which save lives and serious injuries in car crashes. I hope that you are not implying that we do not mandate these and wearing anti-Covid-19 masks if people object to them.
Social Darwinism is an attempt to apply the ideas of Darwin about evolution to how people can best live and progress, or one might say the lessons of the past to the present. If these attempts are misguided, and I would certainly agree with that, then the question is, How and Why were they misguided? One obvious reason could be because they were wrong. You have not done that.
Before you blamed religious folks for smearing Evolution. There are many religious folks on this forum, but I am the only one who uses this approach along with others. Don’t blame other for what I do. Still if there is a problem, and I think there is, then it needs to be addressed. I did not create Social Darwinism. Religious kooks did not create Social Darwinism. People like Herbert Spencer did.
1 Like
Sigh, it is as if I am speaking into the void. You didn’t seem to read past the first half of the first sentence.
I would expect a forum of scientists to be good with terminology and logical distinction. Guess not.
This inability or perhaps unwillingness to understand is what makes me think ID is onto something.
I am not a scientist, I am a linguist, and therefore I assume other people are fascinated by endless discussions of semantics, as well they should be. I assure you that meanings of words is one thing I am competent to discuss. I think you are not communicating nearly as well as you think you are. But I am happy to drop the subject as a hopeless cause.
6 Likes
Well, the subject will resurface again indefinitely. IDists think the fundamental thing they are refuting is the claim “teleology is undetectable in evolution”. Not “evolution”. Not “common descent”.
Darwin’s theory is the first sort to discredit the notion there is teleology in evolution. Dawkins more recently repeats this notion in The Blind Watchmaker, and calls this specific take on evolution “Darwinism”, claiming it is the only coherent evolutionary theory. Thus, IDists, perhaps without too much mystery, choose “Darwinism” to denote the specific theory they are refuting.
Now, everyone is up in arms with using the term “Darwinism” because it is now for some reason solely associated with creationism. Apparently, no mainstream scientist uses the term to refer to the specifically undirected kind of evolution that ID seeks to empirically refute.
In which case, in the interest of clear communication that does not devolve into semantic debates, we need a new term to denote “teleology is undetectable in evolution”. Unfortunately, “dysteleology” does not cut it, because there is another position commonly called “theistic evolution” (abbreviate to TE) that claims both to be consistent with “teleology is undetectable in evolution” AND “evolution is teleological”. This group can thus claim both “dysteleology” AND “teleology”, since they claim at the emipirical level evolution appears to be “dysteleological” but at the religious level it is “teleological” since evolution is undetectably guided by God.
THEREFORE, if ID claims to be refuting “dysteleology”, then TE will pipe up and say, “hey we’ve already got you covered, evolution is indeed teleological due to God’s direction, no need to refute dysteleology”. This is why we need a term other than “dysteleology” to designate that which ID seeks to refute. BECAUSE, the fact of the matter is ID has a legitimate goal that is not covered by the TE’s positing of undetectable divine guidance, namely that said guidance may indeed be empirically detectable, and that we should at least try to find out!
Hopefully, it is now clear to you that which I intend to communicate by my displeasure with the term “dysteleology” as a replacement for “Darwinism”.
I feel your pain… how often have I been extremely careful with my terms, using terms that clearly have a very specific and defined meaning like “common descent”, and which have a very specific connotation and definition even in such objective sources as Wikipedia, and people still feel the need to import alternative meanings and connotations, going so far as to suggest that when I say “common descent” I must have also been referring to the larger “Darwinian” mechanism of mutation and natural selection, or that “ common descent” as a term is somehow unclear??.. and For instance when I have been very, extremely careful with my terms and definitions to be clear I have no disagreement with the specific timeframe involved in human evolution from primates, but people still exhibit a near magical ability to read into my words and somehow know that I was in fact claiming that there wasn’t enough time for humans to evolve, when that was neither what I said, nor what I in fact believe, and I when I was extremely carefully to use words that communicated such… But no matter, those who post here must somehow magically know what I really believe even over my most explicit objections…
I just give up. I realize I am largely dealing with folk that have no interest in understanding my position… and indeed, it reinforces my doubt that they would even be able to see evidence for intelligent design if it were in fact there for an objective observer to see.
Please forgive my near ad hominem, but I do get tired of people continually re-interpreting everything I type here in order to counter beliefs that I in fact do not hold. It gets old.
1 Like
That really does seem to be the case. In all the forums I’ve participated in, whether Christian Biologos, Christian/Atheist Peaceful Science, or very much angry atheist The Skeptical Zone, there is a very studied attempt to misunderstand ID.
Why go through all that trouble to misunderstand if it is so wrong? Just take the strongest, clearest, most iron man ID position you can find, one which the predominance of the primary ID leaders would accept, and lay out the clear evidence and reasoning why it is wrong.
Since the opposition will not do so, after multiple decades of debate, then the most likely explanation is they cannot, and therefore ID has a legitimate claim worth pursuing.
I’ve always wondered what ID’ists think is the reason evidence for divine creation never seems obvious, at least not to those not already on board. If it were by design, that could account for the lack of persuasive evidence. If not then it would seem that showing His hand was not the plan. Which leads me to wonder whether IDists imagine their efforts to be pleasing to God?
Atheists are often guilty of scientism. It does seem IDists too have an inflated notion of the reach of science., albeit for different reasons.
2 Likes
Hm. Very interesting point. But I have trouble finding teleology in nature, let alone evolution, if we find random cruelty and suffering, such as the parasitic wasps. How can one pick and choose a wonderful part of creation to determine what one thinks is God’s leading, and not choose the other?
The article on ENV In Cells and Whole Organisms, Repair Mechanisms Imply Foresight, Not Evolution | Evolution News claims that repair requires foresight, and that natural selection would never give rise to this (again, natural selection is not all of observed nature). But how do we know that foresight (or intelligence, or consciousness) is not evolved?
I’ve mentioned before my evolutionary capstone prof asking whether positing God as the creator doesn’t just push the problem back further–eg, what gave rise to God.
My father, a staunch but very thoughtful YEC, once stood under the starry night sky with me and remarked, “Sometimes I look up at the vastness, and wonder–what is beyond? For example, what is beyond that star? Is there something beyond our universe? Is it God? If so, is there something even beyond him?:”
The humble questioning he made reassured me. It made me realize that God doesn’t govern by fear, but follows reason. The fact that Dad knew God was like his own father, and would look with joy on his questioning, made me realize it was ok to ask questions.
I may have mentioned this before, but the prof that challenged my faith most was not a science prof, but a lapsed Lutheran English teacher in community college. He asked me how I could prove God existed. I stewed over that till I finally went to my dad with near certainty, telling him that my answer to the question that was among the many strange things that happened in the world, something must have been miraculous. Dad, to my surprise, shook his head. “No,” he said. “Miracles are very hard to find. Most of the time, if we look hard enough, there’s a natural explanation for them. I have found you have to make a leap of faith. That came to me in my years at Hope College, when our professor introduced me to Kirkegaard. I remember typing late at night for the final paper, and coming to the conclusion that we all have to decide for ourselves where to put our faith.”
Thirty years later, I am still considering the depth Kirkegaard’s and my dad’s challenge. I am a Christian. However, I think it is very hard to prove an actual miracle. It is also more and more evident to me that if God exists, He is happy for us to ask the probing questions. He would not judge us for being unable to believe what we can’t; and is more than happy to see us discover the world around us, using our critical thinking.
It seems that the faith is not the most important thing. God does more than create, and more than exist. Similarly, we do more than believe. I love Lewis’ quote (maybe @Daniel_Fisher can help me find it–I think it’s in “The Great Divorce”–about how some spend all their time on apologetics, but not on living like Christ–“as if all He had to do was exist!.”)
As Macdonald wrote, “Doing the will of God leaves me no time for disputing about His plans." You and we, Mr Fisher and Dr Holloway, do find that so. May we find common goal in serving as Christ served, and more than just on disputing how the world came to be.
Thanks.
5 Likes
Good, I think we are getting at the disconnect finally. No Christian I know claims evolution is dysteleological. Teleology and dysteleology are idealogical add-ons to the biological theory. TE/EC proponents think discussions of the teleology belong in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics, not science. So, the major point of contention is that TE/EC claims that discussions of teleology don’t belong in science and ID says yes they do. But I still don’t think it is the semantics of Darwinian evolution or Darwinism that sums any of this up or is even at issue. Maybe you are correct then in saying that it is Darwinism that you are objecting to, if you are agreeing that Darwinism is philosophy + science, and is not synonymous with the theory of evolution nor Darwinian evolution. The problem is countless ID folks come around here addressing anyone who accepts evolution (with no empirically provable teleology) as Darwinists when they have never been proponents of dysteleology. Or using Darwinian evolution to mean Darwinism.
Well, more like they’ll say, “Good luck doing that in the realm of science. I don’t believe it’s possible.”
4 Likes
What ideas are those? Where in the theory does it say that we should prevent people from having children if we deem them less fit?
It’s the naturalistic fallacy, plain and simple. Hume described it as the Is/Ought problem. This is a well known concept in philosophy, ethics, and morality.
Search for Darwinism at AiG. Are you going to claim that the people over at Answers in Genesis are not religious?
3 Likes
I have asked several times what people think Darwinian evolution is. Strangely, the people who use the term don’t seem capable of defining it.
Is neutral theory part of Darwinian theory? What about our modern understanding of genetics and population genetics? Can you find any writings by Darwin outlining concepts like neutral drift, random mutations, or diploidy?
2 Likes
We could also go to “Evolution News and Views” and see how they define Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian evolution. Since that website is run by the leading ID organization, the Discovery Institute, I’m sure that no one will object if I use their articles as a reference for the larger ID movement.
Here are a couple of quotes from a single article:
Let’s say that the shape of a bird beak changed over time without any influence from natural selection. Apparently, this is a big problem for Darwinian evolution according to the Discovery Institute.
By their own admission, neutral theory has falsified Darwinian evolution. It’s done. Scientists adopted neutral theory decades ago, and with it they left Darwinian evolution behind, and this is further backed up by the Discovery Institute.
So why are ID/creationists going after a theory that scientists don’t accept or use? Why aren’t they addressing the modern theory of evolution, the theory that scientists actually use?
7 Likes
A fair number of IDists are atheists or agnostic, so pleasing God is probably not their top concern.
—sarcasm redacted—
So responding to this point and @Randy, first and foremost we must remove all vestiges of religion from ID. We are only talking about empirical data and mathematical models. That’s it. No theological speculation should be allowed to enter the empirical domain.
We need a term that distinguishes the teleology that can be verified or falsified empirically, from the teleology that belongs in the realm of metaphysics beyond science.
ID/Darwinism are only concerned with the former kind of teleology, and not with the second. That is why IDists consider themselves opposed to Darwinism, the empirical sort of dysteleology, and say that TE/EC are Darwinists, because TE/EC affirms empirical dysteleology. Finally, that is why IDists say they are interested in disproving Darwinism, i.e. the empirical dysteleology. So, we might as well just label empirical dysteleology with the term “Darwinism”, unless there is a better term. Dariwinism’s primary purposes is to explain the empirical appearance of design with empirical dysteleology. Seems like a good fit to me, especially if the goal of ID is to disprove empirical dysteleology and thus affirm the empirical appearance of design as being the result of emprical teleology.
Those would all fit under his concept of random variation. The point of random variation is not the particular form it takes, whether random mutations, neutral drift, gene duplication, or so on. The point is that the variation takes place without any anticipation of any future benefit acrued. I.e. Darwin is intent on debunking Lamarkism, which posits that variation can be directed by organisms.
Likewise with ID, the particular nature of the random variation is not the main point of contention. The crucial question is whether all variations that take place are random (i.e. undirected, dysteleological), or if there are some we can empirically detect to contain teleology.
If that’s true how in the world do you infer what can count as indicating divine design. I’d be able to recognize bee design or beaver design but - and I am an atheist- I cant begin to imagine what divine design would look like. Where do you draw the information which informs your search for such things? Or do you just look for indications of design which is beyond our own current technological prowess, be it advanced aliens, time traveling people from the future, fairies, elves or gods?
3 Likes
Got it. Thanks. However, I don’t get that impression from the ENV site. It seems bound and determined that an intelligent source created. What else does one call that?
Also, where does one go for the explanation of the intelligence? Do we not get to ask how intelligence, foresight, and consciousness might have evolved?
Thanks. 
2 Likes
Sounds like we need a primer on the explanatory filter 
1 Like