Re: [asa] Jerry Coyne's Confused Attack on Religion

Hi Schwarzwald,

“Though I'd even defend Miller's views about God interacting with nature - science may not 'demand' the view they espouse. But neither does science rule it out. Maybe it's because what they're talking about isn't a field science can rightly rule on - and I'd agree with that - but it damages Coyne's attempts here to the point of sinking the boat anyway.”

After re-reading Coyne’s essay a second time, I am struck by the depth of its intellectual sloppiness. And what you mention is just another example among many – there is plenty of middle ground between demanding and ruling out.

Coyne writes, “No, a proper solution must harmonize science with theism.” That sounds good. But to harmonize is not the same as to transform. Coyne seems to be under the impression that theists need to transform theism into science. No, to harmonize simply means to compare and relate them in a manner that is coherent and rational.

So let me come to Miller’s and Giberson’s defense too. Just because one uses some theory or finding from science does NOT mean they are doing science or pretending they are doing science. As a matter of cultural reality, science provides all kinds of information that can be usefully imported into another form of inquiry or argument. An atheist may use findings from parasitology to prop up the argument from evil, but that doesn’t mean the science of parasitology has shown God does not exist. For that matter, court cases often incorporate the findings of forensics, but this does not mean science is deciding the case.

While I have not read their books, I doubt very much that their views about convergence and human evolution are being offered as scientific theories IN science, but are instead being used as in the examples above - they may be simply trying to take findings from science and show people they are more friendly to their theism than many may realize.

- Mike Gene

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Schwarzwald
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 6:31 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Jerry Coyne's Confused Attack on Religion

  One thing that never ceases to bother me about arguments like this - I find it utterly duplicitous to play the game of 'If this claim (central or not) of Christianity is untrue, there is no God.' Not just because so often the argument is stacked and atrocious with regards to Christianity ('If the world is not 6000 years old, Christianity is untrue and there is no God') but because it slyly ties the idea of God to one religion in a way unwarranted.

  Now, I'm christian myself (catholic). But I'm tired of that jump, as if there were no considerations of deism or a barer theism or otherwise between christianity and atheism. Saint Paul didn't think so. Aquinas didn't think so, or - apparently - Aristotle, or Plato, or many others. Even the most ardent, strict apologists will typically make use of arguments (powerful ones, in my view) that they admit will only get someone as far as 'There is a God' or 'There may be (with various strengths of probability, depending) a God'. Christ is ultimate, but those other steps should not be discounted. And too often this sloppiness is forgiven because they assume that only one God apparently 'counts'.

  With that off my chest, I'd say Mike Gene has Coyne's faults highlighted wonderfully. Though I'd even defend Miller's views about God interacting with nature - science may not 'demand' the view they espouse. But neither does science rule it out. Maybe it's because what they're talking about isn't a field science can rightly rule on - and I'd agree with that - but it damages Coyne's attempts here to the point of sinking the boat anyway.

  On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

    Hi Randy,

    "Thanks for drawing attention to this review. I was struck by his comment: "If we cannot prove that humanoid evolution was inevitable, then the reconciliation of evolution and Christianity collapses." and later "Giberson and Miller proclaim the inevitability of humanoids for one reason only: Christianity demands it."

    This is where Coyne may have a point. If humanoids were the end target from the very beginning, then they would qualify as Dembski's "specified complexity" and would either need to be the result of inevitable convergence (the front-loaded option as dubbed on this list) or of supernatural guidance along the way. Conversely, the idea that humanoids were the goal from the beginning is not discernable from science but only from revelation. Ergo, Christianity demands it but not science."

    Agreed – science is not telling us that humans were inevitable. Giberson and Miller appear to get their position about convergence from Simon Conway Morris. And while I find some of the convergence arguments to be of interest, it is more interesting (to me) that the main front-loadin' dude (yours truly) finds his views to be more similar to Dawkins than Conway Morris. After all, it is *theology* that steers me away from Morris and Miller's view – I don't think God intended to create "humanoids," as if talking dolphins would have sufficed.

    If Coyne wants to pick fights with Miller and Giberson and their attempt to use science to support theology, it makes me no difference. After all, I'm the one guy who, for years, has consistently argued that these design arguments are neither science nor religion/theology/apologetics.

    Where Coyne errs, and errs big time, is in hijacking science to make it sit in judgment of God's existence and the truth of the birth and resurrection of Christ. That's why I focused on it.

     -Mike Gene

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Randy Isaac
      To: asa@calvin.edu
      Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:18 PM
      Subject: Re: [asa] Jerry Coyne's Confused Attack on Religion

      Mike,
        Thanks for drawing attention to this review. I was struck by his comment: "If we cannot prove that humanoid evolution was inevitable, then the reconciliation of evolution and Christianity collapses." and later "Giberson and Miller proclaim the inevitability of humanoids for one reason only: Christianity demands it."

        This is where Coyne may have a point. If humanoids were the end target from the very beginning, then they would qualify as Dembski's "specified complexity" and would either need to be the result of inevitable convergence (the front-loaded option as dubbed on this list) or of supernatural guidance along the way. Conversely, the idea that humanoids were the goal from the beginning is not discernable from science but only from revelation. Ergo, Christianity demands it but not science.

        As for convergence, Coyne notes that "We recognize convergences because unrelated species evolve similar traits. In other words, the traits appear in more than one species. But sophisticated, self-aware intelligence is a singleton: it evolved just once, in a human ancestor."

        Randy

      Mike wrote:
      Jerry Coyne has written a lengthy, critical review of Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution by Karl W. Giberson and Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul by Kenneth R. Miller. You can read it here:

      http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 26 23:46:15 2009