This quote from Behe puzzles me. It seems to be a definitional game
concerning the words "Darwinian" and "random."
If it is true that "Darwinian" and "random" must be defined as "unplanned,
unguided in any sense" then I think Behe is right, at least on an orthodox
understanding of God's sovereignty. But most TE's will say "random" has a
much more limited, technical definition. They use "random' to mean "not
correlated with any observable cause." So, something could be "random" in
this sense and yet still be subject to God's planning and guiding -- His
providence. And, many TE's will say Darwinian evolution isn't really
"random," because natural selection is a known cause.
Here's another illustration from the miracle of human birth: a husband and
wife decide to have a baby. They make love; 400-500 million sperm are
released and fight their way towards the egg (the egg is one of 300-400 eggs
a woman will ovulate in her lifetime out of 400,000 or so in her ovaries).
Of the few sperm cells that reach the egg, one penetrates and fertizes it.
I think in statistical terms we'd have to describe the determination of
which sperm reaches that particular egg as "random" or "chance." There's no
way for the husband and wife to control that part of the process, and
there's no observable, empirically detectable guidance of the sperm by the
hand of God. Yet, we don't hesitate to invoke God's providence when we
consider *this particular human* person who is born as the result of the
extremely unlikely chance pairing of *this particular sperm* and *this
particular egg. *You can describe each of my children in some statistical
sense as a product of chance, but I'm as certain as I am about anything in
the world that they each are God's unique, providential, special gift.
I can't imagine that Behe isn't aware of the above distinctions, and I don't
think he is being disingenuous, so I'm struggling to figure out where the
disconnect is. If Behe-type ID's and Collins-type TE's agree that nothing
is metaphysically "random" because of God's providence, where's the beef?
On 7/24/07, John Walley <john@walley-world.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> I found this today in the last chapter of Behe's book. It is his
> distinction between TE and Darwinism that I though some may find
> interesting.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> The Edge of Evolution
>
> By Michael J. Behe
>
> Pages 229-232
>
>
>
> No Interference
>
>
>
> How was the design of life accomplished? That's a peculiarly
> contentious question. Some people (officially including the National Academy
> of Sciences) are willing to allow that the laws of nature may have been
> purposely fine-tuned for life by an intelligent agent, but they balk at
> considering further fine-tuning after the Big Bang because they fret it
> would require "interference" in the operation of nature. So they permit a
> designer just one shot, at the beginning – after that, hands off. For
> example, in *The Plausibility of Life*, Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart
> hopefully quote a passage from an old article on evolution in the 1909 *Catholic
> Encyclopedia*: "God is the Creator of heaven and earth. If God produced
> the universe by a single creative act of His will, then its natural
> development by laws implanted in it by the Creator is to the greater glory
> of His Divine power and wisdom."
>
>
>
> This line of thinking is known as "Theistic Evolution." But
> its followers are kidding themselves if they think it is compatible with
> Darwinism. First, to the extent that anyone – either God, Pope Mary's
> physicist, or "any being…external to our universe responsible for selecting
> its properties" – set nature up in any way to ensure a particular outcome,
> then, to that extent, although there may be evolution, there is no
> Darwinism. Darwin's main contribution to science was to posit a mechanism
> for the unfolding of life that required no input from any intelligence – *
> random* variation and natural selection. If laws were "implanted" into
> nature with the express knowledge that they would lead to intelligent life,
> then even if the results follow by "natural development," nonetheless,
> intelligent life is not a random result (although randomness may be
> responsible for other, unintended features of nature.) Even if all the pool
> balls on the table followed natural laws after the cue struck the first
> ball, the final result of all the balls in the side pocket was not random.
> It was intended.
>
>
>
>
>
> […]
>
>
>
> But the assumption that design unavoidably requires
> "interference" rests mostly on a lack of imagination. There's no reason that
> the extended fine-tuning view I am presenting here necessarily requires
> active meddling with nature any more than the fine-tuning of theistic
> evolution does. One can think the universe is finely tuned to *any* degree
> and still conceive that "the universe [originated] by a single creative act"
> and underwent "Its natural development by laws implanted in it." One simply
> has to envision that the agent who caused the universe was able to specify
> from the start not only laws, but much more.
>
>
>
> Here's a cartoon example to help illustrate the point. Suppose
> the laboratory of Pope Mary's physicist is next to a huge warehouse in which
> is stored a colossal number of little shiny spheres. Each sphere encloses
> the complete history of a separate, self–contained, possible universe,
> waiting to be activated. (In other words, the warehouse can be considered a
> vast multiverse of possible universes, but none of them have yet been made
> real.) One enormous section of the warehouse contains all the universes
> that, if activated, would fail to produce life. They would develop into
> universes consisting of just one big black hole, universes without stars,
> universes without atoms, or other abysmal failures. In a small wing of the
> huge warehouse are stored possible universes that have the right general
> laws and constants of nature for life. Almost all of them, however, fall
> into the category of "close, but no cigar." For example, in one possible
> universe the Mars–sized body would hit the nascent earth at the wrong angle
> and life would never commence. In one small room of the small wing are those
> universes that would develop life. Almost all of them, however, would not
> develop intelligent life. In one small closet of the small room of the small
> wing are placed possible universes that *would* actually develop
> intelligent life.
>
>
>
> One afternoon the uberphysicist walks from his lab to the
> warehouse, passes by the huge collection of possible dead universes, strolls
> into the small wing, over to the small room, opens the small closet, and
> selects on the extremely rare universes that is set up to lead to
> intelligent life. Then he "adds water" to activate it. In that case the
> now–active universe is fine–tuned to the very great degree of detail
> required, yet it is activated in a "single creative act." All that's
> required for the example to work is that *some* possible universe could
> follow the intended path without further prodding, and that the
> uberphysicist select it. After the first decisive moment the carefully
> chosen universe undergoes "natural development by laws implanted in it." In
> that universe, life evolves by common descent and a long series of
> mutations, but many aren't random. There are myriad Powerball–winning
> events, but they aren't due to chance. They were foreseen, and chosen from
> all the possible universes.
>
>
>
> Certainly that implies impressive power in the uberphysicist.
> But a being who can fine–tune the laws and constants of nature is immensely
> powerful. If the universe is purposely set up to produce intelligent life, I
> see no principled distinction between fine–tuning only its physics or, if
> necessary, fine–tuning whatever else is required. In either case the
> designer took all necessary steps to ensure life.
>
>
>
> Those who worry about "interference" should relax. The
> purposeful design of life to any degree is easily compatible with the idea
> that, after its initiation, the universe unfolded exclusively by the
> intended playing out of natural laws. The purposeful design of life is also
> fully compatible with the idea of universal common descent, one important
> facet of Darwin's theory. What the purposeful design of life is *not *compatible
> with, however, is Darwin's proposed mechanism of evolution–*random *variation
> and natural selection–which sought to explain the development of life
> explicitly with out recourse to guidance or planning by anyone or anything
> at any time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:52 AM
> *To:* John Walley; 'Gregory Arago'; 'David Campbell'; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' =
> Naturalism
>
>
>
> Behe is at the more sensible end of the ID spectrum, though I don't think
> he came off very well at Dover. It's always been clear that he
> accepts "evolution in general," though not the Darwinian variety. I haven't
> read his new book but if it's indeed true that he is now criticizing only
> the "power of random mutation" then he has really moved quite a distance
> from the kinds of claims that made him a darling of the IDM - i.e.,
> "irreducible complexity." The idea that Bob Russell - no friend of ID - has
> argued for, that God directs the evolutionary process by determining the
> outcome of quantum processes involved in mutations - is one way of dealing
> with the randomness issue. I wonder if Behe would be willing to accept
> something like that.
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* John Walley <john@walley-world.org>
>
> *To:* 'George Murphy' <gmurphy@raex.com> ; 'Gregory Arago'<gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>; 'David
> Campbell' <pleuronaia@gmail.com> ; asa@calvin.edu
>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2007 10:17 PM
>
> *Subject:* RE: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' =
> Naturalism
>
>
>
> In Behe's new book he makes it clear he clear he accepts common descent.
> The only component of evolution he takes issue with is the supposed power of
> random mutation. Is this still toxic?
>
>
>
> Granted most of the criticism of Dembski and Johnson before in the past is
> valid, but I'm curious if ASA will allow Behe to redeem himself if he
> disassociates himself with them which he seems to have done in this book. Is
> common descent sufficient enough evidence of taking evolution seriously?
>
>
>
> I would think as TE's, most ASA members would now be on board with Behe's
> new arguments excepting the fact that possibly he takes the conclusion too
> far and suggest interventionist Design instead of an embedded natural
> process of just design of unknown natural origins. He does do a good job
> though in my opinion of illuminating the observed limits of random mutation
> which I think is a worthy contribution.
>
>
>
> Behe compares Darwin's randomness to Maxwell's "aether" which was widely
> accepted before Michelson-Morley. Maybe like science, IDM is a growth
> process where the truth becomes more clear over time and people's
> presuppositions are exposed and falsified, on both sides?
>
>
>
> John Walley (ASA lurker)
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *George Murphy
> *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2007 8:59 PM
> *To:* Gregory Arago; David Campbell; asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' =
> Naturalism
>
>
>
> What IDM has brought is not just not "healthy," it is toxic. Its one
> contribution has been to give people who don't want to accept evolution some
> supposed reasons for not taking it seriously. ICR & AiG also have resources
> to hand out, videos under their belt, &c. The tactics of Dembski & his
> Minister of Disinformation O'Leary put Karl Rove to shame. Sure, maybe you
> can find a couple of rose petals floating in the muck, but why bother?
>
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
>
> *To:* David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> ; asa@calvin.edu
>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 23, 2007 7:10 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Theological Naturalism - 'The Nature of God' =
> Naturalism
>
>
>
> Well, let's give this a bit more rigour than just throwing the whole IDM
> out wholesale. Surely there must be features of the IDM or ID
> theories/hypotheses that you don't find too far off the mark? At least for
> me, it is not all bad.
>
>
>
> The IDM appears to have done, in a short period of time, more than ASA
> has done in its entire history (a history I don't know that well) in
> bringing the dialogue between science and religion, science and theology or
> science and faith to the mainstream American public. Granted, not all of
> what it brings is healthy, but 'bring it' it has certainly managed to do! I
> was at Discovery Institute not long ago and they've got resources to hand
> out, videos under their belt and books that are not too far out when they
> stay away from the politics. Priviledged Planet and the new resource Explore
> Evolution are indeed achievements. So let's not be so quick to throw stones
> at what they've done.
>
>
>
> I would agree with you that they have failed for the most part on the
> social-humanitarian thought front, but this is mainly because they have very
> few scholars working in these fields. The infamous 'wedge' document hinted
> that within 5 years (this was a couple of years ago), 'design' theory would
> find its niche in social sciences and humanities. Yet still, the IDM refuses
> to distinguish between human-made and non-human-made i+d. So they are
> certainly not making hay in those fields.
>
>
>
> You write: "It's not anything justifiably associated with biological
> evolution that is the root of problems in social-humanitarian thought,.."
>
>
>
> This is not exactly accurate, imo. There is now happening what has been
> called a biological challenge to social science. Some social scientists are
> looking to reestablish connections with biology, as it is now arguably the
> signature discipline in the natural sciences. Issues in physics do not
> compare with the urgency of bio-genetics, especially since the 'mapping' of
> the genetic code. Physicalistic philosophies that already underlie
> biological thought have made their way into social-humanitarian thought, not
> only through socio-biology and evolutionary psychology, but also deep
> ecology and green friendly animism. This occurrence certainly IS associated
> with biological evolution, given that biological evolutionists have taken
> the liberty to export/transfer their theories to other disciplines. R.
> Dawkins' memetics is a prime example.
>
> "...rather atheistic or other bad theological/philosophical assumptions.
> It is true that many people, including those knowledgeable about biological
> evolution, have tried to claim that evolution supports these other views,
> but such claims are not justified." - David C.
>
>
>
> Again, I think you're speaking from within a protected world that does
> not acknowledge what's really happening out there. There are very, very few
> (I would provocatively add, IF ANY) evolutionary theories, fitting inside an
> evolutionary paradigm that have a good theological/philosophical assumption.
> P. Singer, E.O. Wilson, R. Trivers, D. Dennett, M. Ruse - even if we leave
> out those names as extremists of the mirror-image-to-ID-leadership, the
> majority of evolutionary theorists I am familiar with either disregard
> theology and (oftentimes) philosophy or have a contrary worldview to those
> espoused across the range in monotheistic world religions. If you'd like to
> argue otherwise, then I'll be glad to bring a whole bunch of names in the
> secular academy to compare with your anonymous list of
> neo-creationists (incl. evolutionary creationists) who for the most part are
> not evolutionists theoretically, but only by word of mouth.
>
>
>
> ASA continues to be a last bastion of hope for TE's because the fact of
> the matter is most people in American are not TE's!! The claim of bad
> theology/philosophy is actually quite easily justified when one actually
> looks at what Darwin himself said, and then also looking at what his
> followers did with his ideas. Besides, for every one Asa Gray or Alfred R.
> Wallace there are many times more who use Darwinian evolution as a tool for
> atheism or agnosticism or even anti-theism.
>
>
>
> The only thing I can see that will help ASA's cause, which could indeed be
> soon discussed with CIS brothers and sisters, is to allow more space for
> social-humanitarian thought, including philosophy and theology, to find a
> platform against evolutionary naturalism (as an ideology - which even George
> Murphy is against), that will leave respective space for natural scientists
> to practise in their fields with concepts and percepts as they see fit. This
> would be a platform that acknowledges the challenge of i+d theories TO
> SOCIETY, to people outside of where natural science is done who are looking
> for a way to finally and completely reject the type of evolutionary ideology
> that says we are meaningless, purposeless products of chance, that religion
> is an illusion and that Science proves we are physical-only systems of
> self-organized complexity. If TE's at ASA would be willing to re-configure
> their relationship with evolutionary ideology, as expressed wholesale in
> social-humanitarian thought, it could save the legitimacy of evolution in
> natural science and cut away the bad theology/bad philosophy that you
> are highlighting in your message.
>
>
>
> Stepping up to confront Theological Naturalism is one way to do this.
>
>
>
> G. Arago
>
>
> *David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> > Most people on this list find it easy to
> > criticise the IDM for its supposed failings in biological science, yet
> at
> > the same time they remain quiet on the second front of the 'wedge' which
> is
> > directed towards naturalism, materialism, physicalism and secularism
> > generally. This was Johnson's intention - to combat the secularization
> of
> > society, part of which is happening through the diffusion of
> evolutionary
> > theory, specifically Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolutionary theories,
> into
> > social-humanitarian thought.
>
> Yes, they fail at that part, too, both because of the energy that
> could be directed at that that is being wasted on inaccurate attacks
> on evolution and because of their failure to properly identify the
> problem. It's not anything justifiably associated with biological
> evolution that is the root of problems in social-humanitarian thought,
> but rather atheistic or other bad theological/philosophical
> assumptions. It is true that many people, including those
> knowledgeable about biological evolution, have tried to claim that
> evolution supports these other views, but such claims are not
> justified.
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
> boot with the *All-new Yahoo! Mail *<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40705/*http:/mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca>
>
>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 25 09:20:52 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 25 2007 - 09:20:53 EDT