But why would Christian Theology need to be harmonized with “random mutations” or “randomness” when the Bible tells us that God uses randomness (such as the casting of lots) for his purposes?
I just don’t see why harmonization would be necessary.
What is the Neo-Darwinian playbook and where can I get a copy of the current edition?
@Eddie, its all about definitions.
Jerry Coyne is marginalized in science. He does scientific work, but he does not speak for us.
For example, in order to disprove God he actually agrees with the ID movement in wanting to remove methodological naturalism from science
Larry Moran does the same.
Note, that this is an absurd AGREEMENT between Moran, Coyne, Dawkins, and the ID movement. AND it is totally outside the mainstream consensus. Methodological naturalism is part of science for everyone except the culture warriors.
About neoDarwinism vs. neutral theory. Even, Larry Moran himself explains regularly that neutral theory is more dominant than positive selection (neo-Darwinism).
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-difference-between-neutral-theory.html
PZ Meyers also makes this point too:
And as I have already shown, Engenie Scott, the NAS, the NSCE go to great pains to show that scientific evolution is entirely different than the atheism-evolution hybrid of “Darwinism.”
Of course, the YEC-ID-Dawkins movement has a difficult time keeping these definitions straight. All of this is just dog whistles and posturing to stoke conflict. They all want conflict. They are marginalized in science because of it.
Very relevant here is this quote from PZ Meyers. As you read this, keep in mind that the scientific definition of neo-Darwinism is a “positive-selection” focused understanding of evolution:
I was rather surprised yesterday to see so much negative reaction to my statement that there’s more to evolution than selection, and that random, not selective, changes dominate our history. It was in the context of what should be taught in our public schools, and I almost bought the line that we can only teach a simplified version of evolution in grade school, but then it sunk in that I was talking to a group of adults about the standard biological perspective, and their reactions were a mix of total bafflement, indignant rejection, and strange evasive waffling. Well, when should we talk about this stuff, then? Do I have to start making day trips to the local nursing home? Or maybe we should be honest from the very beginning about the complexity of modern evolutionary theory and how it has grown to be very different from what Darwin knew.
First thing you have to know: the revolution is over. Neutral and nearly neutral theory won. The neutral theory states that most of the variation found in evolutionary lineages is a product of random genetic drift. Nearly neutral theory is an expansion of that idea that basically says that even slightly advantageous or deleterious mutations will escape selection — they’ll be overwhelmed by effects dependent on population size. This does not in any way imply that selection is unimportant, but only that most molecular differences will not be a product of adaptive, selective changes.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/02/14/the-state-of-modern-evolutionary-theory-may-not-be-what-you-think-it-is/
That agrees with my own experience and observations
quite well.
As to “Methodological naturalism: does it exclude the supernatural?”, of course it does. Otherwise Science would still be Philosophy (Natural Philosophy, that is.) Christian philosophers which most Christians here would recognize as some of the great pioneers of what became modern science went to considerable effort to establish the Scientific Method and the very definition of modern science. It grieves me to see (1) methodological naturalism confused with atheism and some sort of sinister plot, and (2) the noble progress of those outstanding Christians (from Newton to Descartes to Lavoisier to Faraday and so many more) to be deprecated in this way.
It is as if many Christians are so enamored of (or jealous of?) the successes of Science that they wish to redefine it so they can use it for their propaganda purposes. So much of the ID movement, for example, is about philosophical arguments, not scientific ones, (even though scientific topics are discussed) and that is why they often fail to present anything falsifiable under the Scientific Method. (No wonder Stephen Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt is one long face-palm of poorly presented philosophy masquerading as poorly understood science by a philosopher with no solid scientific experience, training, or credentials. His choice of publisher is quite revealing in itself. Meyer knew that his book was not a scientific work.)
I will point out that I (as a computational biologists) have been practically screaming these points since I joined the forum. Neo-Darwinism is dead, and has been for decades. It is silly to watch the ID devote so much effort to argue against a dead theory.
Third Way is correct, but their point has been known for a very long time. Essentially, they are just trying to reclaims the word “evolution” from Dawkins and the atheists. It is just a rebranding campaign. Commendable, but informed people already agree with them.
To be clear, neutral theory relies even more on “randomness” than neo-Darwinism. So the theological questions (and answers) still stand.
My problem with Coyne is not his science. It is his conflation of science with evangelistic atheism. It is in this that he does not speak for science. He can say whatever he wants, but notice that he is not a spokesperson for the AAAS, the NAS, or any other major scientific organization focused on outreach to the public. With good reason. He is not a helpful ambassador of science, even if his scientific work is solid.
In contrast, among many other excellent ambassadors, I do work with the AAAS. Of course, they do not endorse everything I say (I would never claim that). However, it is bridge builders that are needed now. It is those that pursue peace that speak for science now.
The popular conception of evolution is flat wrong. For that matter, so is the ID-YEC-Dawkins conception of evolution. The right answer is to end the silly debates, and assert with authority the correct scientific and historical definition of evolution. This is exactly what I do. I invite you to do the same.
Dr. Swmidass, could you recommend a good online summary of the correct definition?
I would also be interested in reading more about your scientific research career and your current projects.
I find it so frustrating that many Christians hear particular scientists presenting their personal opinions about non-scientific topics outside of their areas of expertise (e.g., Biblical studies, religious studies, history, philosophy) and immediately assume that Modern Science and even scientists in general are making said claims. So when I tell them that the Theory of Evolution makes no statements about the existence or non-existence of God, many will explode in disbelief and say “Of course, the Theory of Evolution is atheistic! Just listen to what Richard Dawkins says about being a fulfilled atheist!”
The fact that Ken Ham and RIchard Dawkins totally agree on various false dichotomies (e.g., you either believe the Theory of Evolution or your believe the Bible) should give pause—especially when both deprecate any Christian who rejects that false dichotomy.
You can read about my research here: http://swami.wustl.edu/ and http://swami.wustl.edu/swamidass_cv.pdf
You can read about my faith-science thoughts at http://peacefulscience.org/.
Very soon I will be posting on Peaceful Science an article defining evolution with pointers to online resources with the correct definition. If you sign up for the blog, you’ll get it as soon as it hits the web.
In context of the current moment. We could also add @deliberateresult and @dcscccc to your list of people agreeing with false dichotomies. In this, they actually have far more in common with Dawkins than BioLogos ever will.
I’ve noticed that, especially with dcscccc. Some of his more shocking positions were critiqued in an email bulletin I receive from one of my seminary professors of long ago. Ken Ham often attacks Christians for simply agreeing with science that is also embraced by famous atheists, yet he has no hesitation agreeing with Dawkins and friends when it suits his propaganda purposes.
Thanks for posting your blog link and other helpful resources.
Of course not all ID people want conflict. Some of them do not. Great. Some of them are just uninformed.
Just read the ENV blog to see what I am talking about. They devote most of their words to arguing against “Darwinism” and oddly count Third Way as an ally. “Darwinism” in science has been dead for a long time. It is a silly argument to be conducting. Third Way certainly is not agreeing with ID arguments; they are only articulating material mechanisms for evolution (design is not included). Third Way is a very odd group to claim as allies with ID. This whole line of conversation is either honestly and thoroughly confused (which is often the case) or seeking war (which is also often the case).
Usually, in my experience (massive qualification), many people in the ID movement resist a correct understanding of evolution (@deliberateresult is a great example) for befuddling reasons. Often, (speaking as an intuitive person) it really looks like they just want war, and are wilfully resisting the correct understanding.
@Eddie I know you are much more friendly to ID than me. Maybe this is just one of those place we agree to disagree. On theology we have much more in common. Maybe that should be our focal point.
I tried to find an “ENV blog” but failed. What does ENV stand for?
Evolution News and View, the official blog of the Discovery Institute:
If you want some thing interesting, search for my name:
http://blogs.discovery.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=swamidass&IncludeBlogs=2
I am indebted to them really. I think they may have made me famous =).
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.