evolution still have a lot of problems. so the id guys do a good job.
“but weighing—as many evolutionary biologists are also doing—the relative importance of natural selection as a driver of evolutionary change”
Sy, did you mean to say, “the relative importance of random genetic mutations…”? It seems to me that the other proposed mechanisms driving evolution are either driven by natural selection or are selected by it.
These are fine quotes from the link:
FROM DENTON
“There is a tree of life. There is no doubt that all extant life forms are related, and descended from a primeval ancestral form at the base of the tree.” (p. 112)
FROM SY
"In this book we find what has been lacking in many ID arguments: the threads of a coherent scientific hypothesis to explain the great question of emergent novelties during evolutionary history. There is no mention of the impossibility of explaining complex and novel biological structures and systems by natural causes or the red herring of statistical improbability. In contrast, Denton constantly stresses that biology is based as much on natural law as is physics. His arguments against gradualism and panadaptationism are biological rather than metaphysical, and are very much in line with those of the Extended Synthesis."
I agree with you and hold to natural selection as a primary force in evolution regardless of the mechanism of variation, even as applied to innovative jumps. One can imagine many such dramatic jumps (like some of the monsters that can be engineered in lab experiments) that would quickly disappear under selection. But some of the evolutionary biologists exploring the extended synthesis, Shapiro in particular, and also to some extent, Noble, Laland, Jablonka, do tend to reduce the relative importance of natural selection, in favor of natural genomic engineering (Shapiro’s term) or ecological influences that go beyond selection as usually defined.
The other key part of that sentence is the word “driver”. This means that while NS is always there, many biologists have long held that NS is not a creative force for change. I tend to think some of this is due to semantic differences, and its still too early to know where the truth lies.
dcs
You might not, but Michael Denton does, which was the point of a good part of my review. I dont expect that diehard creationists will change their minds, and I dont think Denton thinks so either. What I do think is that we may be seeing the “evolution” of a potential consensus on the part of Christian biologists who understand that the Bible is not a science text, and was never meant to be.
Gosh… even “Thanks!” is a lot like getting clubbed…
Part of this new approach may be part of spending less energy on trying to emphasize differences between ID proponents and TE proponents.
We all see God as having a role in the development of life on Earth.
George
@Sy_Garte and and Aniko, thanks for the review, I found it insightful. In practice it seems like evolution in general (on a macro level anyway) is an enemy of the Discovery Institute. I’m at this point a little baffled by their position, as I thought pushing back against common ancestry was one of their big things (perhaps not officially). In practice they seem to be about much more than just questioning the specific evolutionary mechanisms–they seem more about undercutting evolution in general. I’m confused that they would put out a book that seems to accept evolution generally. In your view what exactly is their deal then? What’s their bread and butter?
I thought this FAQ paragraph at the Discovery site was interesting:
5. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
" It depends on what one means by the word “evolution.” If one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable [<typo - there is no “a” in this word] direction or goal, including survival of a species.” (2000 NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). "
I think that this is a pretty good answer. But I think Roger (@Relates) would agree that they need to include a reference to changes in ECOLOGY that shape the response to natural selection - - in terms of survival, but even more importantly, differing levels of fertility and reproductive rates of offspring !!!
Whenever I see the words “intelligent design theory”, I’m always left wondering what an author means by that phrase. Despite claims by the Discovery Institute and others that “ID theory” is science, all I see coming from them is a philosophical position pretending to be a scientific theory. After all, when asked to define “ID theory”, they provide a lot of personal incredulity arguments but no scientific hypothesis that can be subjected to falsification testing. Irreducible Complexity arguments are philosophical meanderings like “The cell is extremely and I refuse to believe that it could have been produced by step-by-step evolution.”
I react similarly when I see phrases like “an unpredictable and purposeless process.” Is gravity purposeless? One could characterize it as having purposes like bringing masses closer together or keeping my feet on the ground. And “unpredictable” is an admission of human limitations, not the limitations of a Creator. So just because mutations may seem purposeless or unpredictable or random to to most people doesn’t necessarily make those or any other evolutionary process somehow problematic within the plan of God.
I see nothing about evolution theory which makes it in any way incompatible to God’s designs for his creation, just as I don’t think of this phenomenon problematic: the unpredictable randomness of which atom of some radioisotope sample will next emit a decay particle. I don’t understand why anyone would confuse our human limitations and confusions and discomforts about the operation of the universe with God’s sovereignty somehow being flummoxed by something as trifling as “randomness”. The Bible itself tells us that change-randomness is controlled by God.
I’m reacting in a general way to the ID movement as a whole. I’m not trying to criticize anybody in this thread. Your comments have stimulated my thoughts but I’m not presuming to refute anyone, especially when I don’t know all that much about your positions.
Interesting topic!
1 Like
Discovery
"However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.” (2000 NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article “Meanings of Evolution” by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas."
George,
As I have said before Discovery and ID have much the same criticism of Neo-Darwinism, but our answers as to how God guides evolution are different. Ecology determines selection by determining the ability of alleles to survive and thrive in their ecological niches.
Theistic evolution apparently holds that God guides evolution, but are “agnostic” as to how. Thus they maintain basically a neo-Darwinian position, but not the neo-Darwinian result of random and unguided, which is not true.
I’ve always assumed that “random” is a word describing one of the many aspects of man’s limited knowledge. As a Bible-believing Christian, I belief God to be omniscient and omnipotent. So to me, the word “random” would never truly apply to God’s vantage point. The things we may regard as random are no less known and certain to God than the things we consider a “sure-thing”.
I’m very familiar with Openness Theology. But I’ve never had much positive to say about it. My favorite professor used to say, “In an ultimate sense, what we humans may describe in the subjunctive mood, God sees in the indicative and imperative.”
Dr. ExYec
I totally agree with the above statement, and with most of your previous comment about ID. The reason I think the book by Denton is so interesting, is that (as I mentioned in the review) he does seem to be steering a new course away from what you describe as the typical more traditional ID line, toward hypotheses that may in fact be useful in a scientific sense. If that is true, it is very important, in my view. I also think that Eddie’s insights about ID are a good source of the intellectual history of the movement.
Good posting!
If I were in a position to re-write Discovery’s sentence, I would write it thusly:
ORIGINAL:
". . there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. "
WITH IMPROVEMENT
“. . . there is no inherent conflict between Intelligent Design theory and any scenario of evolution where God directs the course of evolution EITHER (a) as a purely natural process or (b) as a natural process with real time divine interventions in the genetic milestones of life on Earth.”
Since all BioLogos supporters (and all “Old Earth” pro-ID folks) agree that God was involved in the ongoing unfolding of the chain of life on Earth, it becomes more of a footnote as to whether God extinguished Dinosaur life on the planet by:
- divinely changing the trajectory of the 6 mile-wide meteor into collision with the Earth;
or - arranging the trajectory of the meteor back at the very creation of the Cosmos, letting the unfolding of natural laws guide the meteor into its inevitable collision with the Earth.
2 Likes
@Eddie,
I have a problem with distinguishing the lawfulness of Gravity from the lawfulness of Natural Selection. Certainly Gravity is much more precisely measured. Is it this lack of precision that you mean when you say “not governed by law” ?
If a genetic mutation allows a person to defeat infection by the Plague … I would say that this is not “mysterious” or “contingent” … but directly the result of natural laws that the new genetic code allows the individual to resist plague.
Could you clarify your thoughts?
George
I think the most obvious evidence of such “lawfulness” or “orderliness” is Convergent Evolution.
EYES
In its broadest form, different life forms that live in an environment suffused with light tend to create the functional equivalent of EYES … even though the forms are unrelated to each other. Squid eyes are not the same as Bird eyes. Fish eyes are not the same as dog eyes. But they all have functional parallels.
THUMBS
“. . . the evolution of the sesamoid “thumb” of the giant panda certainly is not parallel to that of the thumbs of primates, particularly hominins, and it also differs morphologically from primate thumbs, but from some points of view it might be regarded as convergent in function and appearance.”
FINS
Mammals with four legs who live in an aquatic environment long enough develop fins and propulsive tails: whales and seals have lots of functional parallels to sharks and fish.
Distinct ecologies evoke distinct priorities of nature. But, as with the comparison to Gravity, these natural developments are much harder to quantify and measure.