Hello Sy,
I do not know the answer to my question. That’s why I asked you.
It has been a very long time since I’ve read Denton’s A Theory in Crisis “classic” and so I was hesitant to reply to your question without first going back to review my ancient notes. Having done so, I’m reminded why even when I make allowances for promotional hype, the “theory in crisis” hyperbole was not just reckless. It was dishonest. So I find it difficult to pretend that replaying the hyperbole sounds any better the second time around.
I can certainly respect Darrel Falk for being diplomatic and keeping communications channels open to the ID movement. Yet, frankly, I hold Denton partly responsible for taking a perfectly respectable term like “intelligent design” and turning it into a synonym for amateurish philosophy and pseudoscience posing as science.
The Theory of Evolution is no more a “theory in crisis” now than it was at the time of Denton’s first hyperbole. Now I would have been entirely fine if Denton & Co. had said any of the following:
-
Mutations and natural selection are not nearly enough to explain everything we’d like to know about the evolution of life on earth. (But nobody is claiming that mutations and natural selection are the entire story!)
-
Scientists passionately argue about their different views on the detail of evolution. (Guilty! I’ve never attended any kind of academic conference where people didn’t get worked up about their differing opinions. But that doesn’t mean that a scientific theory which has survived over a century and a half of falsification testing is “in crisis”! Get real.)
-
Some scientists are too casual about the difficulty and enormity of the scientific research that still lies ahead of us in understanding the history of the diversification of life on earth. (Yes, I think there are multiple evolutionary processes of great importance yet to be discovered! Just as genetic drift and genetic draft have filled in some past gaps in our understanding, I think there are other evolutionary processes which are going to greatly expand the explanatory powers of the Theory of Evolution! Of course, I could be wrong. If so, shoot me. But I think the ongoing evolution of life on earth is a mind-boggling, exciting, breath-taking, and extremely complex set of evolutionary processes which is going to occupy many generations of scientists! That’s not a “crisis”. That’s a challenge and a great reason for young people to choose science as a career.)
As to the new book, I normally wouldn’t want to be all that expressive about a book of which I’ve only read one sample chapter. But seeing how it seems to be nothing but a repeat of the—let’s be honest here—lamentable “evolution: a theory in crisis” CLICHE, I find it very very difficult to take Denton seriously. His original “classic” left me with the impression that he had an extremely poor grasp of the subject matter. The new sample chapter hardly gives me any reason for optimism about his efforts to educate himself on these topics since that time.
It appears obvious to me that Denton is reaching out to an evolution-denying audience which will assume that he is saying that “the Theory of Evolution is completely wrong” even if Denton never actually makes that claim. After all, the book jacket implies something along the lines of “When Denton wrote his original classic work, things were looking quite pessimistic for the Theory of Evolution. But now the theory is truly on the ropes and is ready to gasp its last breath!” Is that not the intended message? Yet, what is the reality? Like it or not, the mapping of the human genomes and the many published predictions scientists had made about the genome based on the Theory of Evolution made that milestone a tremendous SLAM DUNK CONFIRMATION OF THE THEORY. If the nested hierarchies of phylogenetic trees had been purely coincidental, building nested hierarchies from the DNA of countless species would have totally destroyed the Theory of Evolution. But that wasn’t what happened! Instead, scientists discovered at the genomic/molecular level the same kinds of relationship which about 150 years of phylogenetic trees had shown us. More coincidence? I think not!
No, not only is the Theory of Evolution NOT a “theory in crisis”, it is the desperate hyperbole and evidence-ignoring denialism of the anti-evolution origins-ministry propaganda industry that is totally IN CRISIS.
When do we blow the whistle and say “Enough is enough!”
As a Bible-affirming Christ-follower, I would LOVE to discover some scientific theory which somehow helps confirm my theism. (I don’t know how that could be possible when science doesn’t address the existence or non-existence of deities but that’s another topic for another day.) So the fact that I may share the same theology as many evolution-deniers and ID-theory fans simply doesn’t matter. Evidence matters to me. And the Theory of Evolution in no way denies what the scriptures tell me. (I’ve spent a lifetime studying the Hebrew Tanakh so don’t pretend that I’ve simply overlooked something that somebody happens to think is obvious in their Scofield Bible.)
I already know that Denton’s original theory in crisis was a major embarrassment which helped destroy any possible credibility for the ID movement. So my question for anybody who has read the new volume is this: What does Denton say in the new book that would justify my reconsideration of his hyperbole? “Crisis language” sounds more like propaganda than science.
P.S. Please: Arguments from Unwarranted Authority don’t matter to me. I don’t care if Darrell Falk happens to like the book or if Richard Dawkins hates it. Don’t care. Doesn’t matter. I also don’t care if you find my “review” unconvincing. I’m not trying to gain followers. I’m simply identifying my impressions thus far. And whatever I may think of the very real controversies of the science academy concerning evolutionary processes, I already know that there is no “crisis” underway—just as I know that the Germ Theory of Disease is not in crisis even though discoveries in fields like epigenetics are complicating the science!
Once again I point to the very honest example of Kurt Wise: If you reject any and all evidence for the Theory of Evolution and for billions of years of earth history because you believe that your interpretation of the Bible requires that you do so, just say so! Both Christians and non-Christians will generally respect that honesty. Let’s not pretend that it is all about following the scientific evidence wherever it leads if you know in advance that you MUST ignore the scientific evidence.
Your question, as well as your other followup comments, confirms my suspicion that you didn’t understand my post. (Indeed, I anticipated and addressed your question quite directly.) Perhaps in the interest of brevity and a concise summary, I was not sufficiently explicit. I would encourage you to reread my comments.
This topic concerning how God’s sovereignty relates to his creation deserves its own thread. A casual tangent won’t and can’t do it justice.
Prof Falk’s review is a wee bit hard to understand, at least for me. However, I am sure he did not mean ‘amazing’ to be polite or sarcastic. He explains that the book is ‘amazing’ for 2 reasons, one of which is its scientific content and the other being that it was published by the DI. What he doesn’t explain is why he thinks the content is amazing, but it’s important because I think it cannot be because the book breaks new ground. Falk himself cites a review article that he seems to significantly misinterpret (this obscure commentary by Carl Woese and Nigel Goldenfeld), but mentions Wagners (Gunter and Andreas) and others who might not consider a book of this kind to be ‘amazing,’ unless it says something that they don’t. And that seems unlikely to me, because Denton’s last book (Nature’s Destiny) was an engaging but uninformed exploration of old anthropic ideas, punctuated with much giddiness about how amazing evolution is (and it is) but offering no new ideas at all.
Falk claims that Denton is challenging “those who have focused primarily on the gene and natural selection as the driving force for evolution.” That’s not new, not hardly. My suspicion is that Falk was truly amazed, not by what Denton writes, but by the fact that he wrote it as a DI fellow in a DI-published book. That is the bulk of Prof Falk’s review.
I remain interested in discussing whether Denton has written anything new or striking. I very much doubt it.
There has been so much discussion here, that apparently some folks are not aware that this thread follows our review of Denton’s new book. f you go to the top of this thread, you will see the link to our review. We also found problems with the book, but generally concurred with Darrell (and even to some extent, Moran) that this is an important book for moving the conversation forward about ID.
1 Like
Since it appears that at least two commenters here were not aware of our fairly lengthy review of the book, I would suggest that we terminate extraneous conversations for the time being, and try to return to a discussion of the matter at hand, namely the signifcance (or lack thereof) of Denton’s new book. Thanks, all.
1 Like
Eddie
I think its because they just didnt realize that this thread is tied to a review of the book. I have made that mistake several times, and now I always check at the top of the comments to make sure there isnt a link to a blog post. In this case, there is.
I find it fascinating that because one scientist, Darrell Falk, says some positive things about Denton’s retread of a sensationalist cliché, “a theory in crisis”, other reviewers are supposed to bite their tongues.
I’ve never gotten to know Dr. Falk. I never really had the opportunity. (We met once or twice. That’s it. If not for both of us wearing name-tags, I doubt that either of us would have remembered the other.) I have no doubt that he is a fine man, a good neighbor, and he’s probably very skilled at what he does. Nevertheless, I know LOTS of scientists, including many who are evangelicals, and so I can’t say that I double-check with Dr. Falk exlusively before drawing conclusions about what I read. So, frankly, whether or not Dr. Falk had good things to say about Denton’s latest book simply doesn’t outweigh all other factors as I evaluate what I’ve read of Denton’s titles.
With that in mind, I’m amazed that anyone would chastise anyone else for daring to be unimpressed by some book based on whether or not some other particular evangelical happened to be impressed by it.
Amazing.
1 Like
Dear Prof Garte,
My sincere apologies for not referring back to your review. I have now read it.
My specific question remains unanswered, because the topic of your review, and Darrel Falk’s, is largely the fact that a pro-evolution book (albeit, apparently, one riddled with anti-evolution slogans and hyperbole) has been published by a fellow of the DI, by its “press.” You touch only very briefly on Denton’s structuralism, which was already apparent in his previous book. And you engage in extensive citation of the works and authors that Denton cites, mostly (it seems to me) to make the case that Denton has read some real science.
You note some errors and problems, which to me are very serious and which to most evolutionary biologists would make the book unworthy of any consideration. But your review barely delves into the actual arguments the book makes, or the contributions it offers. I do not mean this as a criticism of your review, because it seems to me that your review, like Falk’s, was solely about what Denton’s book might mean for the ID movement.
Based on your review, I would conclude that Denton has written a defence of some version of the EES, splattered with anti-“Darwinian” slogans and debating about “jumps from fins to limbs,” a tell-tale mark of straw-man argumentation. It looks bad. The only new thing I see is the structuralist angle.
Were there new biological insights in the book? What do you think Sean Carroll or Gunther Wagner or Andreas Wagner or Hopi Hoekstra would say about the book? What does Denton say about GREs that is new or insightful? Addressing one of those questions, or a similar one, would get at whether the book has any significance outside the shrinking world of evangelical Christianity.
Thanks for your comment, and your questions. Denton makes both large, general arguments (structuralism is better than functionalism) and very specific ones (homologs for distinct clades do not arise from gradualism, using very detailed examples). We did not have the space (the review is already longer than generally allowed by Biologos, but they were kind enough to make an exception here) to go into any depth. We also don’t think the details of the arguments matter, since there isn’t a lot that’s scientifically new here.
As for what the people he quotes would say, I dont know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they would be a bit more negative than we were, mostly since as far as I know, none of them are theists, and the positive aspects of the book, namely the possibility of consensus between two Christian camps (EC and ID) on evolution would probably not matter to them. I am sure they would be at least as disturbed as we were by the unrelenting Anti Darwinian rhetoric.
On the other hand, and this is the important part, I don’t think anyone would object to Denton’s science about the EES, especially EES supporters (like myself). They might not like the use of this science to promote what they might consider a “creationist” or theistic agenda. Remember that the Third Way web site goes out of its way to denounce theistic interpretations of the demise of neo Darwinism.
There are no new scientific insights in the book related to gene regulation or Evo Devo or anything else, but then there aren’t supposed to be. Denton is not writing a version of A Wagner’s book or anything like it. But he is knowledgable about lots of the data. I am (as briefly mentioned in the review) somewhat aghast that he ignores both Shapiro and Conway Morris, but I don’t think those omissions are fatal; they simply weaken his pretty strong arguments for the EES. His actual enemy of course, is not Darwinism, but gradualism and adaptationism, and with this Gould would have had no quarrel at all.
To sum up, its likely that this book will not be of much use to those outside the evangelical community (whether it is shrinking as you say, or not is a different discussion), but within that community, broadly defined to include Biologos, ID, many creationists, and good number of Christians who are perplexed by the arguments over evolution, it is a very important work.
1 Like
@Eddie, did you actually read what I wrote? (Perhaps I should ask if you comprehended what I wrote. Wait. On second thought, I don’t think that such a question would lead to anything profitable for anyone. Consider it withdrawn, Your Honor.)
For the record: I didn’t post my opinion of Denton’s book. And as should be obvious to all, I hadn’t even asked for your permission to do so! (Yes, that was most impertinent of me.)
I made no such claim here. However, for those who may be curious, yes, I did read Denton’s revisit to an aforementioned crisis. A paleontologist friend loaned me her review copy.so that I could address some questions she had on two of the chapters. And a list of errata she had marked in yellow highlighter. (I should have turned her down, of course, How downright defiant and unprofessional of me to conspire so. I’m certainly a rascally one!)
Why? As you’ve made clear, since I’m not on your list of the three officially qualified and approved reviewers, what possible value might there be in it?
Eddie, I contritely bow in humble obeisance to your obvious superiority and last word on all matters of academic integrity and book reviews. In the future we should all withhold our “public opinions”, keeping them to ourselves, at least until you’ve given your considered approval to post here. (As you’ve duly noted, there has been a serious outbreak of unruliness in the ranks on these threads. Rampant expressions of informed but unapproved opinion must be nipped in the bud before they spread like a contagion!)
I accept my reprimand without protest. You’ll hear no more on this subject from me. I promise to keep my opinions to myself in the future but will continue to find considerable entertainment in yours. Truly. I find your posts extremely entertaining.
Amazing even.
Sorry, I didnt see this comment before. I am mostly referring to the papers by Gerald Joyce and colleagues. This is from the Methods section of a recent (2014) paper in nature on the evolution of a monochiral Ribozyme (chirality is a big issue in RNA world, but that’s another topic.
The cDNA from each round was PCR amplified using primers Fwd1 and Rev1. Error-prone
PCR21 was conducted following round 6. The PCR products were used to transcribe the
subsequent pool of RNAs, as described above. Following the 10th round, the amplified
DNA was cloned into E. coli using the TOPO TA Cloning Kit (Life Technologies). Bacteria
were grown at 37 °C for 16 h on LB agar plates containing 50 μg/mL carbenicillin. DNA
from individual colonies was PCR amplified and sequenced by Genewiz (La Jolla, CA).
The same or similar methods have been used in all the in vitro ribozyme evolution experiments I have seen. If I am missing something, please let me know.
If somebody marked up a copy of Denton’s book with yellow highlighter and then gave it to you to read, your impressionable mind would be “tainted.” However, you should read all the positive reviews of the book you can find. No need to worry about bias!
1 Like