Eddie,
Good post, certainly agree with it.
Below is a video that explains it better than I could.
Eddie
That is a great post, and I will refer to it often. I happen to agree with Russell, or at least agree that its a reasonable hypothesis. As for Biologos columnists, I cannot answer, maybe Kathryn will on her return.
I have only written one blog post for Biologos, back in 2010, and it was a personal journey message, not really about these issues. OTOH, the title, (given by the Biologos staff) was “Stochastic Grace” so I did hint at the idea of randomenss being God’s tool, but I didnt mention quantum events. I did say this:
"I believe that this property of the natural laws we describe through science was built in by the Creator to allow for chance, beauty, evolution, humanity and even faith. What we perceive as random chance is not the enemy of faith, but the opposite. It is God’s tool.
I agree with your points about teleology and science. It is true that modern science simply does not allow for teleological arguments. What you seem to be suggesting is a new kind of science, something I also agree with. Of course, the early geniuses, Newton, Boyle, Faraday DID assume a designed universe, and were interested in finding out how it worked. This has never been done in biology to any successful degree (Ted Davis might know a lot more about whether what I just said is true).
Darwin could have taken the same path, after all the TOE is based on artificial selection, which is highly designed. If Darwin had been a very religious man he might have substituted Divine selection for natural selection. But that kind of theory would not have had the same scientific impact for the reasons you state about the power and focus of natural science that excludes purpose. Interestingly other contemporary biologists (even Wallace, I believe) did see the hand of God in TOE.
The question now is, is it possible to find a way to insert teleology into biology, the way the early (and many later) physicists did and do? I happen to think the answer is maybe. But it sure wont be easy, and it will not be accepted by mainstream science. And yes, the ID approach has made the attempt, and has not yet been successful. I agree that the newer (almost totally non theistic) proponents of the Extended Synthesis of evolution whom you name might be getting closer to this goal, but they arent interested in teleological arguments either. So we have a big gap between the research work of Shapiro, Wagner, Noble, and the theological interpretations of Russell and similar ideas.
You are calling for Biologos to fill or at least help fill that gap. I cannot disagree with that. Although it is an enormous task, and I dont really think that just learning more theology will do the trick. (I am very impressed by the theological knowledge of many Biologos commenters, who lets not forget include John Walton and Peter Enns, Thomas Oord, and many others).
I dont think Biologos will ever acknowledge ID as it is currently construed (it is evolving also) as a good approach to filling the gap. I agree. Not because I have any hostility to the conclusions and philosophy of ID, but because the approaches it has taken to gain acceptance and to convince Christian and non Christians that it is serious science, have failed. Could some blend of some form of ID (perhaps Behe’s version or some of Meyer’s) with TE along with a good dose of post Neo Darwinian evolutionary data and theory work? Possibly. Its certainly worth the effort.
1 Like
Good discussion guys - I won’t add anything to it, as it’s just what I’ve been saying for several years…
On the question of genes as switches, the question of the “arrival” of what is switched has been validly raised on this thread, but another factor seems just as significant vis a vis undirected evolution.
And that it, whilst it is possible to execute huge changes rapidly through a complex and layered switching system linked to those mysterious effector mechanisms, it’s also exponentially easier to foul things up the more sophisticated the system becomes. Everything affects everything else, which makes the simplistic mutation/adaptation process supremely implausible. I believe there’s already some serious research showing the catastrophic sensitivity of genetic switching networks to change.
I remember commenting on that a couple of years ago on a thread by Dennis Venema, when he commented that the mere 2% difference between chimp and human genomes was less odd if many genes were involved in switch functions rather than mere coding. But that supposes massive and coordinated reorganisation of the switch networks over a geologically brief time, especially as it appears most of the heavy lifting is restricted to a handful of speciation events in small isolated populations, rather than through phyletic gradualism.
Applying this to Sy’s general observations on the difficulty of getting teleology accepted by science, I just offer this. As Eddie points out, teleology was once essential to science and became outlawed from it not because of the findings of science, but because of a change of general worldview (ie of religious atmosphere), leading to a change of scientific worldview, leading to a change in the kinds of theories proposed or acceptable as scientific, and lastly what would therefore be regarded as evidence. This shouldn’t be controversial, being the working knowledge of philosophy of science: a scientific system is the outworking of a culturally-conditioned worldview.
Ergo, change in what scientists think likely (including what Christian scientists think likely) will probably come primarily from non-scientific considerations, by a change of general worldview. And for that reason, the discussion of general theology/philosophy in their widest senses is key, not least on sites like these. The questions of teleology, and of God as the First Cause of it, and of the christological issues that must accompany them in BioLogos discourse, are not amenable to deduction from scientific data, any more than their absence is: they are axioms by which to understand the science.
In other words, you can’t prove God, but if he exists you will never have a complete science without taking his involvement into account. Christianity supplies a fundamental worldview, based on a knowledge of the caring Creator God who acts to redeem that creation, that challenges and subverts all its rivals. I’m not sure Christians in the sciences have generally been good at working that through in their calling.
2 Likes
Teleology was implied in the past by scientists who believed God created the Universe and all in it. This is articulated in detail by Aquinas, but it has been (and still is) an article of faith for Orthodox Christianity. I cannot see a compelling argument that can be derived directly from the Natural Sciences, that may lead to ‘inserting’ teleology - this leads to the current situation, in which science cannot settle such questions, and it is up to each individual to adopt a worldview that harmonises faith with reason (and reason encapsulates science).
Hi Eddie,
Wow, you and Sy were busy over the weekend! I unfortunately don’t have time for much back and forth today, but one thing needs addressing. You wrote:
…one could argue that macroevolution is real, but directed by God to
certain ends. I have seen that argument in non-BioLogos TEs such as
Russell, and I have seen that argument in ID proponent Michael Denton
(though he sees the direction of God as in front-loading rather than in
manipulation of mutations), but I haven’t yet seen it on BioLogos.
You mentioned that idea earlier in this thread, too. But clearly in our Beliefs statement, all of us on staff affirm macroevolution+God’s direction:
We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are
best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common
descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by
which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject
ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that
evolution replaces God.
Maybe not in a way that is satisfying to you, but we all affirm teleology.
Sy’s comments earlier were spot on:
And as Sy also pointed out, affirming the reality of randomness (whether in fact it’s real or just apparent), and the scientific usefulness of descriptions that make use of randomness, should not be confused with affirming lack of purpose or lack of God’s providence.
1 Like
I think Eddie has said in the past that the “God’s purpose” statements are broad generalizations that do not meet a scientific purpose. I believe he also said that ID proposes that design can be inferred from the science, not superimposed on top of the science. In other words, randomness and natural selection can simply not explain what we see. Design is required to make sense of it, even if evolution was a major mechanism.
Another eloquent comment, with lots of material for discussion. Again, I cannot speak for Biologos, but here are some of my thoughts. As I mentioned above, Ard Louis’ talk, and this post is very exciting, because of the implications for a new biological understanding of evolution beyond neo Darwinism.
But your complaint is valid to a degree. Biologos has not managed to find a theologically valid way to explain the action of God in evolution. Neither has anyone else. Why not? Because it is very hard to do. But evolution isnt the main issue here, its the scientific description of the world. Can we rationally discuss the theological implications of gravitation? Of quantum mechanics? Of chemical equilibrium and the law of mass action? How about Goedel’s theorum or the uncertainty principle? Not for lack of trying. These have all been addressed, but not very convincingly. I do not think that such goals are impossible, in fact I think they are vital. And that is especially true for evolution. But as I said above, it is very very hard to do.
You are right that the new Extended Evolutionary Synthesis which includes the genes as switches idea along with many others is much better for theologians to work with. It still wont be easy because the strict neo Darwinians, who are often also new atheists have already castigated the totally legitimate science behind the EES as veering toward “creationism”. So the people working on these areas have felt constrained to sharply distance themselves from any hint of a possible theistic application to their ideas and data.
My suggestion is to be patient. There is a clear trend (as this very post signifies) and while it might seem slow at the moment, progress will be made. The mechanism for the hand of God in the diversity and majesty of life will come to light. We can only pray for that moment to come swiftly.
We need to be reminded that seeking a detailed theological argument from any scientific theory is fraught with serious difficulties that will, I feel, undermine the effort. An excellent example of this can be seen in the treatment given to the so called ‘big bang theory’. Initially two theories were debated - the steady state and big bang theories. Once additional scientific observations and models lend support to the big bang, controversies arose, strictly because of the philosophical and theological implications that could be derived from this, especially the creation has a beginning and it was created from nothing. A good example of how science can be used for ideology (against theology), is given in a letter to Nature (vol 344, 1990) by A Grubaum (who works, of all things, in the Humanities and Social Sciences), who is very concerned on the philosophical implications if we accept the universe has a beginning, and insists against any theological implications. These type of arguments from the Humanities still hold sway amongst atheists and anti-theists.
It is obvious that anti-theists will spare no effort to undermine any progress in the evolutionary debate, if that seems to support a theological position, and they have a great deal of support and resources from academia and anti-religious people. This again speaks to ideological wars, in which truth is the first casualty.
Theological opinions must be robust and well supported by philosophical arguments (particularly that of Philosophy of Science) – simply hoping that science by itself will provide a ‘silver bullet’ is futile. I think the Church would be well served if people understood this and avoided the mistake atheists have made regarding neo-Darwinism – that science has provided mountains of unassailable evidence and any doubt is anti-science. The opposite view is equally flawed, in that science can be used to prove ND is false, and all the odd arguments that are put forward as if they too are supported by science.
Any argument that purports to show how God has created will ultimately be theological, and based on Faith. Details will be provided by theological and philosophical insights which consider what science has to say on the specific disciplines considered. I cannot see anything useful coming from a process that inverts this methodology, by beginning with some scientific observation, and from this deriving how God creates. Thus seeking a scientific basis for a front loaded argument, or trying to see information embedded by a super intelligence in primordial matter, cannot be supported by scientific experiments for the simple fact that such effort is beyond science.
This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.