Should BioLogos produce science textbooks for college use?

[glipsnort (Steve Schaffner)]

@Eddie

Two other points. First, whether or not Shapiro holds a majority view is not relevant to the question how his knowledge stands in relation to the the people I’ve mentioned.

But that’s not the question. The question you’ve been raising is this: why doesn’t BioLogos write about Shapiro? For that question, it matters very much whether Shapiro is an important voice in evolutionary theory. My belief is that there are many more influential researchers who should be higher on the list. I don’t know why you consistently talk about Shapiro, except that you happen to like his ideas. You haven’t given me any reason to think BioLogos should say anything at all about Shapiro.

@Eddie

Second, you know you it’s more than Shapiro. Are you going to say that about Gunter Wagner at Yale, too?

I’ve previously told you that I think Wagner, and evo-devo more generally, is very important. In fact, I’ve suggested you stop treating people like Wagner as equivalent to people like Margulies. And since, as Christy points out, BioLogos does talk about evo-devo pretty often, I’m still at a loss to know what your complaint is.

@Eddie

On your last point, I’m not talking about “contemporary evolutionary biology.” I’m talking about the notion of evolutionary biology promoted on BioLogos and by most TEs in the ASA. It’s badly dated. There has been one column on evo-devo, to my knowledge in the past six years on BioLogos. None on the Altenberg group. None on Shapiro. No response to the “Third Way” scientists (see their website). American TE still thinks of evolution almost wholly in terms of genes, randomness, and natural selection, whereas the world of evolutionary theory has developed a much more complex mix of ideas. There isn’t a basic idea about evolution that I’ve seen on BioLogos (there is new data on genomes and fossils, yes, but I’m talking about basic conceptual framework) that I didn’t learn 45 years ago reading popularizations of evolution by scientists in the 1960s and 1970s.

You seem to have completely missed my point. This mix – one pointer to the Altenberg meeting, repeated references to evo-devo, no reference to Shapiro or the “Third Way”, and lots and lots of discussion of mutation and natural selection – strikes me as a reasonably accurate reflection of the state of evolutionary biology in 2016. Do something to convince me that this understanding of evolution is actually dated, rather than merely representing a focus on the basics.

I have no problem with suggesting that BioLogos cover some topics that they haven’t been. I think a review of the Altenberg conference proceedings would be great, since there were some good people and interesting ideas there. I’d like to see coverage of facilitated variation; a review of The Plausibility of Life would be great. Ditto for Andreas Wagner’s work on how neutral evolution greatly expands the phenotypic space accessible by mutation. All good stuff, and all more important for understanding how evolution explains the diversity of life than Shapiro’s ideas. But suggesting that other people do more work is a lot easier than doing something myself.

@Eddie

You attack ID people for not being up to date with your notions of evolutionary theory

I do? When have I done that?

@Eddie

If you want to know the problem of some evolutionary theory for Christian theology, I’ve been writing about that on this site for about two years now. And I’ve posted some very specific discussions to Molinist and Old Timer and others. I don’t have the time and energy to keep restating the same arguments to every new person who comes along. You can use Google to search Eddie plus BioLogos plus randomness or plus providence or plus sovereignty, etc. You’ll find probably 50 posts. In those posts I try to present a simplified version of 40 years of study of philosophy and theology in their relationship to certain formulations of evolution. If you are well-versed in theology and metaphysics you can address my statements in those spots. And not just mine, but Jon Garvey’s, since his criticism of the theology of TE/EC very often agrees with mine. If you don’t like my argumentative style, that’s fine; read Jon’s posts instead. You still will have to address much the same theological substance.

Oh, come on. You’ve written thousands of words in response to me and I still don’t know what your real complaint is. Now I have to use Google to find out?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Eddie

Carl Woese, a world authority, says that Shapiro’s book is a “game-changer.” Woese knew more about evolutionary theory than anyone on BioLogos. BioLogos should accept Woese’s statement of the book’s importance,

Hello Eddie,
Your use of the present tense is totally improper, as Woese has been dead for more than 3 years!

Instead of going by what the late Woese said about it, where’s the evidence that any game has been changed by the book? Shouldn’t BioLogos base its judgement on that?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Eddie

I’m sorry, but it’s just a fact that Shapiro knows far more about evolutionary theory than any past or present columnist or President of BioLogos, including Francis Collins.

Hello Eddie,

How did you carry out this quantitative measurement?

[OldTimer]

@Eddie

I think Darwinian theory is just weak, both theoretically and empirically.

I don’t doubt that that is your thinking. But your verbiage seems to be pursuing a very traditional argument among those who campaign against the Theory of Evolution: They think that if they can point out the current set of debates among scientists, they will convince non-scientists that evolutionary biology is “a theory in crisis”. They assume that if scientists are not 100% in agreement and don’t know the answers to every question with 100% confidence, then the Theory of Evolution is “not science” and can be dismissed.

Isn’t that what motivates your comments?

Do the processes of mutation and natural selection encompass everything we need to know about evolution? No! And we’ve know that for a long time. Processes like genetic draft and genetic drift are extremely important to understanding the changes in allele frequencies over time. Even so, those four aforementioned evolutionary processes are not the whole story. We know that as well. And in the coming years I have no doubt that many other interesting processes will be investigated and determined to play important roles in the evolution of life on earth. So what? Nobody claims that scientists know everything that will ever be known about any particular field or subfield of science!

Yet, in the meantime, a basic understanding of mutations and natural selection is essential to appreciating the history of life on earth. I’m reminded of Isaac Asimov’s famous essay on the popular myth that in the future today’s science will be considered “completely wrong”. No.

Einstein did expose the incompleteness of Newtonian theory. But that’s not the same thing as showing that Newton was “completely wrong” and that his equations weren’t useful.

Science is a process of providing better and better explanations as more evidence is examined and processed. The Theory of Evolution entails better explanations today than a century ago. It will explain even more a decade from now and the decade after that. Live with it. Like it or not, the evidence for evolutionary biology is overwhelming. In the meantime, there will be plenty of details for scientists to argue about it. That too is how science works! Whether or not the scientists associated with Biologos know as much as somebody else sounds all too much like the playground taunt, “My dad can beat up your dad!” Yes, it’s amusing but not particularly edifying or explanatory of anything scientific.

Yes, the propaganda tactic employed by various origins ministry is a familiar one: Create doubt in the minds of the uninformed so that they will assume this myth: “If scientists have disagreements, then the science must be wrong!” It’s lame and tiresome. If someone thinks they have discovered evidence which can totally debunk the Theory of Evolution, by all means publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, explain how present theory is completely wrong, and collect the Nobel Prize which is sure to follow. Then that Nobel Laureate can get their TIME cover-photo taken, and select from the many prestigious tenure-track faculty position sure to be offered them. Seriously. I’m entirely serious. I will be among the first to congratulate them for their great accomplishment and brilliant insight. That too is how science works.

Just as Einstein expanded upon Newton’s science, I fully expect evolutionary biologists to improve upon present day understandings of evolution to produce far better explanations of the diversification of life on earth. And good for them. That is what they are paid to do.

[Patrick]

Never rely on one book for all your knowledge.

[beaglelady]

@Eddie

It’s easy. There are more detailed facts about the nitty-gritty of molecular and genetic transformations in Shapiro’s book alone than have been presented in all the columns of BioLogos since its inception.

We are supposed to believe that everything the BioLogos writers know about these topics is present in their columns?

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Eddie

There are more detailed facts about the nitty-gritty of molecular and genetic transformations in Shapiro’s book alone than have been presented in all the columns of BioLogos since its inception.

We’ve had this discussion before, but for some reason you still seem unaware that you are not all that representative of the target demographic BioLogos blog columns are aimed at, and you don’t seem to recognize the purpose or limitations of the genre “blog post.” Hardly any of your typical forum posts would make it in under the blog post word limit.

The percentage of the “church” that would continue reading if BioLogos devoted copy space to the “nitty-gritty” things that interest you is relatively small. Nobody expects to have to take several graduate level classes and complete a reading list of scholarly books and professional journal articles before they can understand a blog post on a non-profit site aimed at interacting with the average church member.

The fact that you can find people who are able to discuss the technical aspects of advanced science and the minutiae of the history of ID on these boards is a bonus. You are welcome. Your repeated complaints of “BioLogos doesn’t publish what I want to read” and “BioLogos doesn’t answer the questions I have repeatedly asked them to address” and “BioLogos doesn’t talk about my favorite people and topics the way I think they should talk about my favorite people and topics” just starts to sound a bit narcissistic after a while. I only mention this out of concern for your good name.

@beaglelady

We are supposed to believe that everything the BioLogos writers know about these topics is present in their columns?

Exactly. Most people’s eyes start to glaze over when they barely scrape the tip of the iceberg.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Eddie

Perhaps it would help if you indicated what the “target demographic” of BioLogos is.

Among all the activities that BioLogos is involved with there are formats that are more specifically targeted to scientists and scholars and formats that are more specifically targeted to the average non-specialist; pastors, school teachers, small group leaders, students…We were talking about blog posts. They are supposed to be accessible to normal people.

[Henry (Henry Stoddard)]

This topic has become rather popular.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@OldTimer

Yes, the propaganda tactic employed by various origins ministry is a familiar one: Create doubt in the minds of the uninformed so that they will assume this myth: “If scientists have disagreements, then the science must be wrong!” It’s lame and tiresome.

Hello OldTimer,

Exactly. That’s all that Eddie’s dancing around and pages of frantic name-checking appear to amount to.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Eddie

It’s easy. There are more detailed facts about the nitty-gritty of molecular and genetic transformations in Shapiro’s book alone than have been presented in all the columns of BioLogos since its inception. And Shapiro’s book represents only the tip of the iceberg of his knowledge; he has links in the book back to much more massive documentation on his website.

Hello Eddie,

You are moving the goalposts. Your claim has NOTHING to do with what has been presented on this web site, your claim was EXPLICITLY about the quantity of knowledge that resides in the brains of specific people.

Even more crazily, you very explicitly included Collins. How many posts has Collins made on this site? Wouldn’t a better measure be found in the extent to which Collins’s landmark papers on positional cloning of human disease genes include comparative genomics (that is, evolutionary biology)? Or his understanding of the massive comparative genomics part of the massive Human Genome Project, which he ran at a global level?

I’m getting the feeling that you are utterly unfamiliar with Collins’s enormous body of work, but that doesn’t prevent you from arrogantly claiming to know the amount of knowledge inside of his head.

Do you feel that such arrogance helps with communication?

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@beaglelady

We are supposed to believe that everything the BioLogos writers know about these topics is present in their columns?
[/quote][quote=“Eddie, post:73, topic:3653”]
No, of course not.

Then why were the columns the only evidence you offered to support your assertion?

[GJDS]

@OldTimer

Just as Einstein expanded upon Newton’s science, I fully expect evolutionary biologists to improve upon present day understandings of evolution to…(what?)…

Perhaps you can inform the rest of us “theologically ignorant” chaps, how this would change or modify Orthodox Christianity. If you feel it will not, what is the point of all of this exchange and argumentation. If you feel it will, why not let the rest of us into this new dazzling insight(s) that evolutionary biologist (including Collins) have brought to Christianity .