Spin-Off: ID, Neo-Darwinism, Ev News and Views, Discovery, etc

Faith & Science Conversation
41

For the most part I agree with you. I could clarify minor points here and there, but that is beside the point. E.g. when I say Third Way is not controversial, I mean that comparatively with ID. Really, they are in just a rebranding campaign. If you look at the debates on this amongst scientists, they agree largely on the science, but just have minor disagreements about terminology and emphasis.

For me, the debate about the mechanism is entirely beside the point when you consider the extremely clear evidence for common descent of man with the great apes. This evidence is extremely clear, the mechanisms here are actually very well understood, and this is center of the public debate. If one accepts or rejects human evolution, none of the rest of it matters really. The rest follows accordingly.

No one really cares if there was a “bush” back in microbial evolution. That is not controversial. Any atheist who argues about that is just plain confused. I suspect even YEC can accept that. For many people, even if we could prove God involvement, the common descent of man would still remain an anathema. The evolution of humans, therefore, is really ground zero in the debate, and also where the evidence is the strongest. This is why I focus on anthropogeny.

ANd to be clear, there is a long history of scientists getting the “mechanism” wrong, but still being given “credit.” Kepler is a great example. His math was largely right about heliocentrism and ellipses, however he (1) thought attractive force decayed with 1/r instead of 1/r^2 and (2) thought it was magnetism (not gravity) that drew heavenly bodies together. History does not care. He got the overall pattern right, and subsequent scientist correctly refined his theory. We are still refining it to this day.

Evolution is very similar. Darwin got the basic theory right (as far as we can tell): common descent. He did not argue for universal common descent (he was open to multiple origins of life). He did not even know what DNA and protein is. He certainly did not understand population genetics and horizontal gene transfer. Ultimately, it did not matter. No one cares. Common descent, it turns out, is extremely well supported in recent evolutionary history (the last 100mya), and particularly well supported in human evolution.

In fact, even if ID was to successfully make its case in science (which I doubt), this would just be a modification to the mechanism. It would not unsettle something as strongly supported as human evolution.

Well I agree with you there. Notice all my quotes to neutral theory, Third Way, etc. At the same time, the ID movement really does tend to misrepresent this. Even if there is debate about the mechanism, there is no debate about the common descent of man. This, very precisely, is the definition of evolution. Therefore, there is no debate currently about “evolution” within science in regards to the crux of the theological controversy: anthropogeny.

Any way @Eddie, I think we are actually very close here. That is nice and refreshing to see. Given all our tussles, I think it is really impressive that you found your way to theistic evolution. Can you tell me a bit more about that journey? How did you, especially as “conservative” biblical scholar, find your way there?

1 Like
42

I support that definition. It just a synonym for “common descent”.

2 Likes
44

Joshua, I am intrigued by this statement (and also your belief that ToE is the most successful theory of all science - or words to that effect). How do you deal with the opinions of other experts who say, for example, the time postulated for the human brain to develop, and the attributes of humans, cannot be explained (away?) by the notions of common descent. Correct me if I have erred, but these opinions come from well recognised scientists in biology. Surely you cannot dismiss this as a “mechanistic” matter.

Again, I feel that I must restate that I am not a biologist, and I simply read what I can from those whose expertise is in biology.

46

@GJDS

I find your approach on this issue of randomness as somewhat similar to @deliberateresult’s.

By INSISTING that the ToE is defined as being RANDOM, you seem to INSIST that the only way for a BioLogos supporter to rightly claim NON-RANDOM Evolution, is for them to produce their personal divine Revelation from God!

Is that fair, GJDS? The Bible tells us God had something to do with the creation of humanity.

But once a BioLogos supporter concludes that the method used by God was “Natural Selection + Genetic Mutation” … you want SPECIFIC DIVINE REVELATION for this?

If you are going to join DeliberateResult that Evolution MUST be random, then what term would YOU USE for the process of “Natural Selecdtion + Genetic Mutation, all directed by God” ???

@Swamidass, in the very likely prospect that @GJDS will refuse to offer his own term for this, do you have an acronym or term for “Non-Random Evolution directed by God”?

47

This exchange with you is getting tedious - I am showing the term is used in a specific manner by bio-scientists. This is not controversial. You insist that you can make theological pronouncements by invoking God’s name; you are in error - I am trying to show you that you (or myself, or Joshua, or Eddie) cannot speak for what God does, and the only people who can are those to whom God has revealed His will on the matter.

Surely you can understand that. Your arguments are odd (or if you take offence at this, then simply irrational) - how do you get to your formula of “Natural selection + genetic mutations + directed by God”? You are not a biologist, so the first two terms are simple statements without authority, and the third statement is theological at best, and you are no theologian.

I do not need to offer any term, nor follow you in your irrational statements. I question the claims of ToE based on the opinions of prominent biologists. I am well schooled in Orthodox Christianity, and I have no problems with faith-science, so just what is your beef?

I would be very surprised in @Swamidass would wish to engage in a theological discussion on revelation and evolution, but if I am wrong, he can speak for himself.

48

@GJDS

And so we are back full circle… but at least you have more specific ammunition for your claims:

  1. My statements that God directed the process of “common descent” are ODD … because 80%+ of the scientists say Evolution is atheistic and/or random.

[Your post is the last nail in the coffin for me … I MUST avoid using the term Evolution … for you and DeliberateResult use it as a CLUB against me.]

  1. And more than that, you DO think it is fair to require my personal revelation from God that he had anything to do with the process of common descent?

GJDS, my dear sir, you have now moved yourself into the ODD and irrelevant camp that refusing to provide a definition will somehow change the credibility & reality of Common Descent!

49

I think my other response to you is sufficient.

50

This is true. Some associated with third way did use similar arguments, created caricatures of current evolutionary theory to provide a rhetorical means of differentiating for a new ‘paradigm shift’, and downplayed some more recent developments. Some or more hyperbolic than others. Shapiro runs close to this edge (IMHO). Lynn Margulis was deep into crank territory. But most others don’t.

51

One thing to add: Natural selection remains a significant mechanism of evolution and biology. Note that even products of ‘natural genetic engineering’ or non-random mutation have to survive and compete in their changing environments. Such mechanisms are unlikely to develop and be sustained unless there is a mechanism like selection to hone them. I think it very unlikely that there are many critical / functional features in an organism’s make-up that were not affected by selection to some degree in the past.

1 Like
52

I agree that, historically speaking, evolution means common ancestry in its broadest definition. It’ been placed in many different metaphysical frameworks, including several that would be “design-friendly,” but the basis notion of common ancestry is the rock-bottom definition of “evolution.”

53

I have been nudged and shoved, and finally welcome the use of the phrase of “common descent” in connection with God’s guidance. It seems to be a perfect fit!.

It’s does seem to be the only way to describe a process that accommodates God, instead of a description that is more commonly known for its Godless perspective. It would be nice if we didn’t have to shift ground so much just because of terminology, but it may be the better part of valor.

54

It needs to be remembered that most of what biologists mean when say mutations are “random” is that they are random with respect to what will increase reproductive fitness. Mutations aren’t random in the sense that all possible mutations are equally likely. In fact some kinds of mutations are much more common than others. There is just no observed bias toward adaptive mutations. In fact neutral mutations are far more common than deleterious mutations, and adaptive mutations are the rarest kind.

Mutations can be categorized by other schemes: all the specific point changes ((C->T) is the most common of the possibilities), insertions and deletions (indels in genetics jargon) in unique sequence, indels in tandemly repeated sequences (the most common mutations of all), translocations, transpositions, inversions, the list could go on an on. But these things that interest a biochemist like me are irrelevant to “randomness.” All these types of mutation have different rates which vary according to region of the genome and probably other factors. But when biologists say mutations are “random,” what they mean is random with respect to whether they benefit the organism.

3 Likes
55

Is this really true, Joshua? Lamarck got common descent right 60 years before Darwin, but not only was he a figure of fun, and certainly not of respect, way back in my sixth form zoology course, but hints at his rehabilitation in the evidence of inheritance of acquired characteristics draws expressions of surprise from both scientific and lay audiences (cf Sy Garte’s recent ASA meeting video). Most of us with scientific training remember that it mattered very much that one not be thought a Lamarckian. History did care, and so did science.

Likewise Wallace was successfully downplayed as the co-founder of the Darwin-Wallace theory throughout the ascendancy of classic Neodarwinism, perhaps because he considered it “directed and purposeful” in a theistic (if heterodox) way (as opposed to Mayr 1972, 1994, who considered the undirectedness of Darwinism to be its most important contribution, with profound ethical and religious implications for society unlike any other scientific revolution). Yet Wallace believed in common descent.

You’re suggesting that Neodarwinism, as such, has long been superceded in real science. I have to say that reading the “for and against” articles about an extended synthesis in Nature has given me a different impression - it still seems to be Darwin (or Mayr, Dobzhansky, Fisher or Simpson), not Kimura, who are fought over by both sides.

But if it is so, are we saying that from the 1920s until, perhaps, the end of the twentieth century, the consensus interpretation of evolution we were all taught at school and university did carry a baggage of materialist metaphysical bias, against which the Creationists of the day had a just complaint? And is it surprising that there is a legacy of religious conflict arising therefrom, which needs to be healed, and not simply consigned to history with “time to move on, folks”?

After all, though Dawkins is increasingly a figure of fun now, he had already shown his religious credentials when Oxford University appointed him the as the first Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science in 1995 - only two decades ago, when you suggest Neodarwinianism was already effectively dead. Were there no scientists in Oxford to protest then?

1 Like
56

Biologists are living in the world of physics in 1910. What we thought was well established, meaning an all encompassing theoretical framework for evolutionary mechanisms (which was also the underlying basis for physiology, genetics, cladistics, anatomy, microbiology, and so on) is now under severe attack. Relativity, quantum theory, cosmology, rocked the well settled understanding of the basic principles of how the world works, by bringing basic concepts of space, time, energy, continuity into question. So too does the neutral theory, punctuated equilibrium and the extended synthesis, bring the Modern Synthesis, established in the 1930s and held to until the 1970s (when Kimura began publishing) rock the evolutionary foundation of random genetic mutation followed by natural selection of the most fit organisms.

I say 1910, and not the 1920s, because in biology we have had only one Altenburg Conference, and that only resulted in discussion of the possibilities of a breakthrough out of strict neo Darwinism. The biological equivalent of the Solvay Conferences has not yet happened, and confusion is still the prevailing sentiment. Yes, @Swamidass is right that neo Darwinism is dead, but @Jon_Garvey and @Eddie are also right that most people dont know this. How would they? Dawkins, Coyne, Myers, and to less of an extent, Moran, are the ones talking to them and telling them that neo Darwinism is alive and well, and all there is.

As Jon mentioned, there have been debates in Nature about the EES, but none of the people I named were among the authors. Those actual scientists who defend ND against EES, do not claim that ND is right and EES is wrong. That wasnt even how the debate was framed. What they do claim is that EES is right, but can be easily incorporated into ND or modern synthesis theory, and is not actually a “new” way of looking at evolution. Historians of physics will see the parallels here.

We do need now some effort at building a new coherent theory, and that is happening. The John Templeton Foundation has funded a major collaborative effort by many Third Way scientists to do that. And scientists like Wagner (both of them) Newman and others are continuing their theoretical efforts in many directions. Joshua (and even I) are also contributing to this, as are many others.

It is an exciting time for biology. But, its an even more exciting time for the science faith dialog, speaking of confusion. We have no idea how any of the new biology will impact that. After all, we are still learning and working out the theological implications of the new (now over 100 years old) physics, and cosmology. So, lets be patient with each other and ourselves. We should praise God for giving us this holy work to do. Its a huge task, and there is lots for everyone to do, and these discussions are part of it.

2 Likes
58

Thanks for your kind words, Eddie. I need to clarify that this talk was not given at the Annual meeting of the ASA which will be held next week at Azusa Pacific University at LA. I spoke at our local Washington DC metro Chapter, to about 25 people. Mike Beidler, a well respected Biologos contributor is the President of the Chapter, and Keith Furman, who recently had a popular blog post here at Biologos about his conversion from YEC was also there. Mike, Keith and I are the officers of the chapter, so it was a generally relaxed and friendly atmosphere.

Here is the link for anyone interested.

As I believe I have said before, ASA is a very large tent that includes ID and YEC as well as EC. There were a couple of ID people in the audience at my talk, and I have heard some YECs at the annual meeting. I would say that Biologos is also a large enough tent to include a number of POVs, as George Brooks has reminded us many times. So is ID, as you yourself have stressed, Eddie.

I think that all of us are prone to bristling when somebody says something we find outrageous. I know that I have, even here. Hopefully we can tolerate some bristling, as long as personal reputation, integrity and Christianity are not called into question.

60

Sigh. How quickly we forget. Referring here to my review on this forum of Denton’s book. And the positive response to it from Biologos staff