Important Clarification: Science of "TOE" vs. Metaphysics of the Eucharist?

[Jon_Garvey]

@gbrooks9

@Jon_Garvey… could you clarify? Do you actually doubt that all populations are subject to this ?

Why on earth would I doubt it? I don’t see why I should have to defend proposals I’ve never made.

[Jon_Garvey]

Joshua

Thanks for this, which echoes the points I was making. BioLogos itself in its official literature used the “common descent” definition, which ought to be pretty non-controversial.

The problem surely is that there’s no official body to insist that this definition is universally used, for example in school textbooks (see this piece on Larry Moran’s blog - I’m amused to see my example of “change in gene frequency” cited verbatim!). If kids are taught the wrong definition, and there are influential people shifting definitions for rhetorical purposes, there may as well not be a correct definition.

Your dissent with ID proposals is an interesting parallel to this, perhaps, because the Discovery lot’s definition of ID runs:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Just as there’s no specific theory inherent in “common descent” (as Lamarck and Bergson would be pleased to hear!), so there’s no mention of scientific proof, or even any specific concept of design beyond “intelligent cause”. In fact, the most contentious point, for a TE, is whether “natural selection” is actually undirected. If not, then omitting “such as natural selection” might make it part of an EC definition. If NS is undirected, then there’s some metaphysical heavy lifting to be done to explain what the “creation” in “evolutionary creation” means.

@Swamidass

Once again, the claim that evolution is by definition naturalistic is, I believe, demonstrably false.

We’d all agree on this - but on the other thread, you cautioned me against “monkeying” with the presuppositions of science because it is a hot button for scientists. I know of a good number of prominent biologists for whom the very suggestion that evolution might be governed by God is anathema.

They would say it’s a complete subversion of the main strength of Darwin’s theory, which needs no god. I’m told that that’s sufficient to prevent a believer getting a job in Oxbridge, so its scarcely just a matter of agreeing to differ.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@Jon_Garvey

They would say it’s a complete subversion of the main strength of Darwin’s theory, which needs no god.

In fact the million dollar ambiguity carries right over into our grammar in that very sentence! It could be either: that the theory needs there to be no guiding God; or on the other hand: the theory doesn’t happen to need God (but is indifferent on the matter).

People are digging their respective trenches over the difference buried in that sentence!

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Jon_Garvey

Why on earth would I doubt it? I don’t see why I should have to defend proposals I’ve never made.

I stand corrected. Maybe eventually I will grasp the core of what exactly you two are disputing.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Jon_Garvey

In fact, the most contentious point, for a TE, is whether “natural selection” is actually undirected. If not, then omitting “such as natural selection” might make it part of an EC definition. If NS is undirected, then there’s some metaphysical heavy lifting to be done to explain what the “creation” in “evolutionary creation” means.

@Jon_Garvey

I do find it strange that this is something worth discussing.

If GOD is part of the process of evolution - - then it is IMPOSSIBLE for natural section to be undirected - - for natural selection is one of the key elements of the evolutionary process.

People who question any part of this equation are just spoiling for an argument.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Swamidass

Once again, the claim that evolution is by definition naturalistic is, I believe, demonstrably false. This is helpful among ID proponents.

All this is to say there is very good reason to insist on the correct definition of evolution: common descent.

@Swamidass

Hold on a second… are you trying to develop a “new and improved” definition of Evolution?

Instead of defining Evolution as a “Godless process effected by natural laws alone”… you want to define it as “the process where humans can be shown to share common descent with other animals on the Earth”?

Am I using your terms as you would use them? Could you confirm that this is your intended approach?

Thanks!

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@gbrooks9

Hold on a second… are you trying to develop a “new and improved” definition of Evolution?

Instead of defining Evolution as a “Godless process effected by natural laws alone”… you want to define it as “the process where humans can be shown to share common descent with other animals on the Earth”?

Am I using your terms as you would use them? Could you confirm that this is your intended approach?

And…

@Jon_Garvey

The problem surely is that there’s no official body to insist that this definition is universally used, for example in school textbooks (see this piece on Larry Moran’s blog - I’m amused to see my example of “change in gene frequency” cited verbatim!). If kids are taught the wrong definition, and there are influential people shifting definitions for rhetorical purposes, there may as well not be a correct definition.

This comes up so frequently that I will be writing a blog post about it soon.

To be very clear, I am not at all monkeying with the definition of evolution. Rather, I am being precise about the most historically and scientifically correct and consistent definition. As I have explained previously…

@Swamidass

The historical, consistent, and scientific definition of evolution is just common descent (CD). There is has been a great deal of debate over the last 150 years about the exact mechanism, and there is currently a “strategic ambiguity” in effect about if God could be part of that mechanism. Science makes no claims one way or the other on God’s action here.

Neo-Darwinism, the boogieman of ID, with its focus on positive selection has been largely supplanted by neutral theory. This doesn’t mean that positive selection isn’t important (it is), but it does mean there are a large class of features in biological systems that are better understood as neutral drift than the classic evolutionary story of selection. This includes things like overall genome similarity, pathway redundancy, and the precise details of genome sequences. A great primer on this is here.

One of the great features of neutral theory is that it has a very solid mathematical basis. Using evolution (i.e. common descent) as a starting point, and then invoking neutral theory, we can explain rigorously why mice and rats are 10x more different (about 20%) than humans and chips (about 2%). CD (i.e. evolution) with neutral theory explains this perfectly, with mathematical rigor, and testable predictions too. I’ve asked ID advocates time and time again: what design principle (other than common descent) explains this pattern. No one knows.

One of the more stunning predictions of neutral theory, that has been recently validated. is that differences between different parts of the genome should correlate with differences in the rate of mutation across the genome. Phrased another way: genomic difference should match the rate of change. To be clear, this is a prediction that is experimentally verifiable. And it has been verified for humans and chimpanzees. What design principle (other than CD) explains this strange correlation? No one knows.

I’ll point out (as always) scientists continue to revise the mechanisms of evolution, particularly when considering specific cases. A great example of this is the Third Way, that are clearly arguing against both ID and Dawkins, trying to give a more complete telling of evolutionary mechanism. Positive selection is important, but it is not necessarily the most important mechanism. Alongside point mutation, moreover, there are several other important mechanisms too (like horizontal gene transfer, transposons, epigenetics, duplication, copy number variation, etc.).

Defining evolution correctly as just common descent is really helpful . There is nothing intrinsically atheistic about it. CD is also the most historically and scientifically consistent and correct definition.

To be clear, also, I am not adding to this definition abiogenesis (origin of life) or universal common descent. These things are up for debate in the scientific community, and not part of evolution proper. One group of scientists thinks that life arose multiple times (so they do not believe in universal common descent). Another group of scientists severly doubts any natural mechanism for abiogenesis could ever be found. Regardless, evolution is just common descent of all life to a few (or one) ancestor.

In fact, in the entirely unlikely event that ID could make its scientific case that God intervenes to inspire some mutations, this would only be a minor modification to the over all theory. This would be just introduced as another mechanism of change among many others. The evidence for evolution (CD) would be just as strong, because it is experimentally and mathematically rooted (with gobs of evidence) in neutral theory.

(Just to be clear, I do think God could have been directly involved by first cause, but I am very skeptical science could ever prove it.)

More importantly for ID, if neutral theory is true (and it certainly looks like it is), the likelihood ID can make their scientific case is severely damaged. This is one reason why most ID proponents dispute all the evidence for neutral theory. If it was true, all the ID math we have seen falls apart.

So I hope that is helpful. I think you have been working from a Dawkin’s-defined version of evolution. But, thankfully, it is not accurate.

And also…

@Swamidass

I am not innovating on this position. The point I am making is widely accepted in science by groups like the AAAS, the National Academy, and the NABT. The non-theist Engenie Scott writes:

Because creationists explain natural phenomena by saying "God performed a miracle," we tell them that they are not doing science. This is easy to understand. The flip side, though, is that if science is limited by methodological materialism because of our inability to control an omnipotent power's interference in nature, both "God did it" and "God didn't do it" fail as scientific statements.Properly understood, the principle of methodological materialism requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act.http://ncse.com/religion/science-religion-methodology-humanism

I’ll point out that this is from the NCSE, the main political body that organized opposition to ID in the Dover Trial of 2005. NCSE is not a theistic evolutionist group, but an organization devoted to promoting the mainstream science understanding of evolution.

To be clear, this God-neutral view of evolution is the dominant view in science right now. Any scientist that tries to argue otherwise is extending science much farther than it can go, and disputing the current consensus. Of course, some scientists do conflate evolution and atheism in their scientific work, but it is not a proper use of science or scientific interpretation of evolution. Thankfully, this happens much more rarely than we might fear, and even when it does you can tell them they are wrong, quoting the NCSE to them if you like.

To this I would add, WITHIN science we only scientifically consider naturalistic explanations. OUTSIDE science we are free to extrapolate this to purely naturalistic evolution (atheism) or God-directed evolution (theism). This is one place where ID runs afoul of the rules. They insist on making the theism inference, within science.

Evolution itself is God neutral, and within the context of the origins debate (which is outside science) the correct and precise way to describe evolution is just common descent.

This is not acceptable, and this is one reason why careful use of the term “science” is warranted.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Swamidass,

Much as i would like to JOIN you in simplification of the terminology … i fear you are just going to drive Creationists towards a THREE STEP terminology instead of two. What do I mean by that? I mean that eventually we are going to be reading posts that say this:

“Are you saying that you hold to Common Descent WITHOUT God?.. or are you saying you hold to Common Descent WITH God’s involvment?”

The issue is with/without God (!) … not whether its common descent or no common descent.

Though, if your approach can be used to get MORE I.D. folks to agree to use Common Descent terminology, it would be great! And even if all we did was push ID folks into a corner (forcing them to REJECT the terminology of common descent) it would be well worth the effort!!!

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

[quote=“Christy, post:18, topic:5252”]
This is an example of where you pick apart people’s word choices and demand justification. It’s obnoxious. Were you honestly confused by anything Jon said?[/quote]
Hello Christy,

What makes you think that I was confused?

I’m pointing out that Jon’s rhetoric is clearly designed to confuse laypeople–more specifically, trivializing vast amounts of science as mere philosophy, just an “-ism.” Moreover, he’s doing so in the context of accusing others of being deceitful!

[quote]It’s antagonistic, and it very rarely accomplishes anything in a discussion.
[/quote]The thread is about clarifying the acronym, is it not?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

It could be either: that the theory needs there to be no guiding God; or on the other hand: the theory doesn’t happen to need God (but is indifferent on the matter).

It’s the latter–by definition. No other scientific theories need or don’t need God, do they?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

[quote=“Swamidass, post:20, topic:5252”]
Which is why the fixed consistent definition of “common descent,” I believe, is so important. This is especially true because this framing is accepted within the scientific community. Evolution (in biology) is not really “change over time;” no, it is “common descent” of life to a single or a few progenitors.[/quote]
Hello Swamidass,

I think you’re missing an important distinction here. Jon was objecting to the description of evolution as a FACT. The only unequivocally factual definition is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time, if we view facts as directly observable without interpretation.

Common descent is a conclusion supported by an incredible amount of evidence, but it’s not the fact of evolution.

I think it’s most clear to segregate these: change in allele frequency is a fact (directly observable), while the theory of evolution includes not only common descent (not directly observable) and all of the mechanisms that produced both of these phenomena, both Darwinian and non-Darwinian. In this context, “Darwinism” is an obfuscation, particularly when aimed at laypeople.

…Anti-evolutionists justifiably cry foul when polemics conflate changes of allele frequency over time (which is not controversial) with common descent (which is at the center of the controversy).

I agree. The former is a fact, while the latter is a conclusion.

[quote]I avoid this fair critique of obfuscation entirely by use the more correct term: common descent.[/quote]Correct as theory, yes; as fact, no.

…ID arguments for design, however, that is another matter. Science often disproves those.

In the process of doing something else, while no one in the ID movement seems to be able to conceive and/or perform an empirical test of an ID hypothesis.

[quote]All this is to say there is very good reason to insist on the correct definition of evolution: common descent.
[/quote]Yes, but only as long as we are careful not to conflate that conclusion with the fact of evolution.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@benkirk

It’s the latter–by definition. No other scientific theories need or don’t need God, do they?

Now that’s an interesting point.

The T…o.E. as a science discussion doesn’t need God.

But BioLogos is teaching something more special than just a principle of science. What it’s proposing something more akin to the metaphysics of COMMUNION!

Don’t you think?

[I’m going to adjust the thread title to reflect this…]

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@gbrooks9

Don’t you think?

Yes, I do.

Kidding aside, I agree. What Biologos is doing is infinitely more intellectually honest than trying to pass off ID as science.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Swamidass
@benkirk
@Jon_Garvey

To reduce the theory of evolution to common descent may be theoretically possible, but a big mistake.

It would mean reducing Darwin’s Theory to only Variation without Natural Selection. That would make it much simpler, but without its explanatory power.

It seems to me what many scientists have been trying to do for a good while They want a theory that in some sense describes, but does not explain and then want to say that description equals explanation. THIS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED.

To use this short cut to solve the evolution problem would be like performing a “successful” operation that killed the patient.

[Argon]

Theories of evolution, Roger.

1. The core theory is descent with modification. That is ‘evolution’
2. A second, core component is the relatedness of life. That is ‘evolution of life on earth’ or ‘common descent’.
3. Other theories include the modes / mechanisms of evolutionary decent. That covers the modern synthesis, and later mechanistic theories.

This is a bit simplistic but…
Common descent is what typically sets the stage for further research into the origins (and future) or life on earth. The drivers and mechanisms behind evolution are like ‘plug-ins’ or complementary theories.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Argon

If we go by what you say, then what are we going to call Darwin’s theory, because according to his view it covers more than evolution? Darwin’s Theory of What?

[Argon]

Darwin’s Theory of What?

Evolution by means of natural selection. It is in the title of his book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Darwin combined common descent with the mechanism of natural selection. That is generally what is meant by ‘Darwinian theory’.

See also ‘Darwinism’. Later, there was the Modern Synthesis and Neo-Darwinism.

[GJDS]

This is a (lengthy) quote made by Ruse, that speaks for itself, and the book was published in 2009:

“I am an ardent Darwinian. I believe that life evolved and that the all-important mechanism was natural selection. More organisms are born than can survive and reproduce, this leads to a struggle for existence, and only some succeed in passing on their bloodlines to future generations. Those that do succeed tend to have features different from the losers, it is these differences that make for success, and so over time there is heritable change (evolution) and this is in the direction of help-conferring characteristics, or adaptations. With John Maynard Smith and Richard Dawkins, I believe that selection produces this, the most interesting feature of the organic world, that which most calls for explanation, namely the design-like
nature of this world – its adaptedness or “organized complexity”.Natural selection (and only natural selection, including here sub-forms like sexual selection) speaks to this feature.”

I want to draw reader’s attention to >>>>> natural selection, and ONLY NATURAL SELECTION, speaks to the feature of heritable change or evolution.

[GJDS]

Perhaps on a somewhat humorous note, I have read today that giraffes did not get long necks because this made them fitter to survive (they could eat at areas others could not), but instead, their long necks have a lot to do with how sexy males become to females - go figure the wonders of the modern synthesis

[aleo (Albert Leo)]

@Christy

attempts to micromanage other people’s vocabulary, or complain about other people’s “tone,” or uncover nefarious motivations behind other people’s rhetorical moves are just going to be deleted.

HOORAY!!! I don’t see anything in the squabbles above that would direct a young Christian student beginning a career in science to hold on to his/her Faith and to try to reconcile the two.
Al Leo