Re: [asa] The Charybdis of the Modern Synthesis

Heya all,

I think there are numerous ways to take teleology, and therefore yes, to
some degree it's in the eye of the beholder. I know that thomists see
teleology in operation even with very basic natural events, for others its a
question of complexity, still others simple intelligibility (CS Peirce comes
to mind here), and so on.

One big problem I have with this debate is that teleology is often (and in
my view, rightly) seen as a philosophical or metaphysical question, and the
plea is to not confuse people by asserting that finding or even search for
teleology is scientific. But at the same time, declaring the absence of
teleology is alternately seen as 'proper' science, or even the ground rules
(with methodological naturalism suddenly called up as essential). That, I
reject. Science (well, scientists) have no business declaring the presence
or lack of teleology on these grand scales, yet too many want to smuggle it
in either as a default position or as the only valid scientific conclusion.

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
>
>
> I just saw Gregory nudging me to reply, so I thought I would oblige.
>
>
>
> You write:
>
>
>
> “My initial problem is with the use of the word telological.
>
> It seems that for some, at least, telology is in the eye of the
> beholder. To be able to discover certain laws or propensities that
> engender or favor certain biologies is not teleology. Because life may
> have evolved in atmospheres and resulted in many life forms flying is
> not telology, not at least as I define it.”
>
>
>
> To a large extent it is in the eye of the beholder. Since no one (in
> science or out of science) seems to possess a methodology to objectively
> detect teleology, how could it be otherwise? After all, recognizing
> teleology is akin to recognizing another mind.
>
>
>
> But as I see it, this is not the huge problem that many would think it to
> be. For one thing, it’s a problem that cuts both ways. For example,
> scientists originally used the concept of preadaptation, a concept many
> recognize(d) to have teleological connotations. Gould came along to do
> some metaphysical house-cleaning and replaced the term with exaptation. If
> a non-teleologist prefers to think of a preadaptation as an exaptation, then
> as you mentioned, it’s in the eye of the beholder. According to the
> individual beholder, either all preadaptations are really exaptations or
> some preadaptations truly are preadaptations (or nudges).
>
>
>
> My approach is to recognize that any “teleology detection” will necessarily
> have a subjective element to it. While this may mean such detection
> cannot ever rise to the level of science, it does not mean an investigation
> built around teleological assumptions is doomed and useless.
>
>
>
> BTW, I should mention that my original posting did not make any claim of
> detecting teleology. What I wrote was this: “And in one sense, this is
> understandable, as symbiogenesis, neutral theory, lateral gene transfer, and
> deep homology all open the door, even if slightly, to a teleological
> interpretation of evolution.”
>
>
>
> As I see it, the many advances in molecular and evolutionary biology that
> have occurred over the last several decades have made it easier, not harder,
> for the beholder to envision a teleological process. Easier, not harder.
> So what you then do is take that mental image, use it to formulate testable
> hypotheses, and explore the living world.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
> *To:* Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com>
> *Cc:* dfsiemensjr@juno.com ; schwarzwald@gmail.com ; asa@calvin.edu ;
> nucacids@wowway.com
> *Sent:* Monday, September 28, 2009 3:19 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] The Charybdis of the Modern Synthesis
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> yes, i can understand somewhat where you're coming from in suggesting the
> word 'teleological' is problematic. i note however, that the 'magic word'
> you are referring to in your most recent post to the list is this:
> scientism. and according to most views of scientism, teleological
> explanations are considered anathema to 'good science.'
>
> now it would be unfair for me to pronounce that 'teleology' is entirely
> unproblematic in up to one-half of the academic world, i.e. the human-social
> sciences, where terms such as agency, will, plan, goal, direction, purpose,
> etc. are commonplace *and* at the same time to suggest that it is only in
> natural-physical sciences where 'telelogy' is banned *by methodological
> fiat*. since Mike Gene is doing just that, i.e. applying 'telic' language in
> biology (but like i suggested, he doesn't appear to be a mainstream
> biologist in a position to influence academic or practising biologists with
> his ideas, though i could be wrong about this - i had hoped he would address
> your thoughtful post since it was his thread and the topic is closer to one
> that he engages in regularly) and since there are other natural-physical
> scientists who *do* use telelogical ideas, it seems there is room for
> debate. this is what it seems you are encouraging.
>
> "It seems that teleology is simply being used as a term in contrast
> to random. It is intended to reflect a more lawlike evolution, one where
> reasons can be given for why certain biological traits are extant." - Bill
>
> i can't speak for others, but i don't use it simply in contrast to
> 'random.' you may be right about the 'lawlike evolution,' which seems to be
> what TEs are getting at by suggesting that evolution *is* guided, just that
> the guidance is hidden or 'kenotic' and that science cannot touch it, hear
> it, taste it, smell it or feel it...for ever and ever, amen. but TEs are
> *far* from having convinced evolutionary biologists of their mixed
> assertion, and they don't seem to be making any headway. someone like
> Margulis is a far more likely candidate to achieve this than are TEs, and 1)
> they probably don't care either way, 2) her 'teleology' is of course nothing
> like what is mean by 'final cause' in terms of St. T Aquainas. Mike Gene is
> probably in the best position i can imagine to do something with 'telic'
> thinking 'in biology', but i have read *no reviews* of his book by
> biologists about whether they have any time for his thoughts. perhaps indeed
> he is being stung by carrying the label 'IDist' or 'design theorist' even
> though he is also a front-loaded-TEist/ECist, with which few biologists
> would take issue.
>
> i read something today nevertheless that made me smile on this very topic:
> “The cosmos is permeated with meaning, and meaning has no meaning outside
> teleology, or final causes. In other words, the meaning *is* the cause.”
>
> it may be that what i've said above on this, and this quote (which also
> refers to Aristotle's 'formal cause' as well as 'final cause'), don't help
> much, Bill, sorry to say. one of the questions people return to again and
> again is 'what is science and what isn't science' and then play a
> demarcation game, and it all goes round and round. Can going round and round
> be considered 'teleological action'? perhaps in some cases it can.
>
> is 'biology' as 'united' a field as some make it appear to be...united
> under Darwinian ideas or logic? i've been told by at least one biologist
> personally in recent days, hearing the same thing from others speaking
> publically that it isn't. the idea of an 'all-powerful Darwin' or even
> 'Darwinism' is more a mirage than a reality in biology itself, despite the
> fact that all of those involved, as well as myself, were part of a Darwin
> celebration. maybe it was just an excuse to get together and to 'go beyond'
> Darwin, which in many ways already has been done.
> let me refer you to an article Levit et al. Journal of Bioeconomics 2008,
> Vol. 10, No. 1. (12 April 2008), pp. 71-96, titled "Alternative Evolutionary
> Theories: A Historical Survey," which deals with 'non-Darwinian' (and also
> with more or less legitimate anti-Darwinian) approaches *in biology.* C'mon
> you Darwin-loving Christians (Michael Roberts and 15% of England rumbles),
> don't deny such non-Darwinian approaches are out there!
>
> Cheers, Gregory
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com>
> *To:* Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
> *Cc:* dfsiemensjr <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>; schwarzwald@gmail.com;
> asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 26, 2009 5:26:54 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] The Charybdis of the Modern Synthesis
>
> Gregory:
>
> I'm listening with much interest to some of these "non-Darwinian" senses
> of evolution, and following some of the articles referred to.
>
> My initial problem is with the use of the word telological.
>
> It seems that for some, at least, telology is in the eye of the
> beholder. To be able to discover certain laws or propensities that
> engender or favor certain biologies is not teleology. Because life may
> have evolved in atmospheres and resulted in many life forms flying is
> not telology, not at least as I define it.
>
> It is true that flying requires as a necessary condition that air exist,
> but why is it teleological that flying species arise?
>
> It seems that teleology is simply being used as a term in contrast to
> random. It is intended to reflect a more lawlike evolution, one where
> reasons can be given for why certain biological traits are extant.
>
> Even if it were the case that certain biological forms follwed in the
> same manner as salt forms salt crystals that would not be teleological,
> for then we can say that all mechanistic science is teleological, terms
> that generally accepted as standing in opposition to each other.
>
> Nor is it whether there are integrated or holistic effects that make an
> event or system teleological. Feedback mechanisms can be mechanistic,
> producing integrated effects on an entire mechanistic system. But we
> don't refer to such a system as telelogical.
>
> So, then, that's my question: How are we defining the term telelogical,
> or is it merely meant to stand as a term in contrast to random?
>
> Thanks,
>
> bill
>
> On Sat, 26
> Sep 2009, Gregory Arago wrote:
>
> > Hi Dave,
>
> I don't think Mike would argue against the point you make, i.e. that
> "evolutionary studies are doing quite well." He is rather making a point
> about 'teleological evolutionary studies' which can hardly be said to
> be 'embraced by most mainstream biologists.' Do you see a difference here or
> am I harping a foul tune?
>
> At the Darwin Conference I recently attended, I was surprised to hear
> several papers by active biologists (not just by yahoos) promoting a
> non-Darwinian form of 'evolutionary studies.' It seems to me that
> 'Darwinian' or even 'neo-Darwinian' evolutionary studies are predminantly
> 'non-teleological.' Would you agree?
>
> I quite like Schwarzwald's question: "If a certain view of evolution was
> being safeguarded...?" If this is the case, then what would it be a good
> thing for the biologists at ASA to do about it?
>
> Mike Gene is promoting, if I properly understand him, a teleological form
> of biological evolution (or at least I think he is a biologist speaking a
> language that biologists should recognize), which is consistent with
> something like what L. Margulis is offering with her 'post-Darwinian'
> approach. Mike involves the term 'design,' however, which makes some people
> uncomfortable.
>
> I don't know if Mike calls himself 'post-Darwinian' too, but there is a
> precedent among biologists for taking such a label and making an attempt to
> understand the natural world with non-Darwinian, i.e. teleological language,
> even in biology.
>
> Gregory
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: dfsiemensjr <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> To: schwarzwald@gmail.com
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 7:54:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] The Charybdis of the Modern Synthesis
>
>
> I don't get Woese's claim. The last biology class I took was over fifty
> years ago, but I have since gone through at least the abstracts of almost
> all of the articles in /Science/. I see a broad movement relative to
> evolution. The modern synthesis in its basic form combined natural selection
> with Mendelian genetics. But genetics is much more complicated than the
> simple pattern found in the nineteenth century. I learned that at least some
> of the 25,000 human genes, a smaller number that expected, produce more than
> one protein, and that control of the genes is not yet well understood.
> Still, the same gene provides the developmental pattern for the compound eye
> in Drosophila, the mammalian eye, and the different cephalopod eye. Seems to
> me this fits an evolutionary pattern. The latest issue of /Science/ that has
> come to hand has an article on rodent coloration, It involves three genes
> interacting complexly, along with a number of mutations, with a
> > resulting differential survival in various milieus. Given the complexity
> of genomes, it looks to me as though we are doing fairly well in deciphering
> evolutionary patterns. Add in the discovery of a large number of fossils
> that show the developmental pattern, at least of the bones, and it seems to
> me that evolutionary studies are doing quite well. I'm sure that any
> practicing biologist can add many items to my short list.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:40:51 -0400 Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> writes:
> Heya Mike,
> >
> >What I find interesting here is that, in essence, Carl Woese is claiming
> that one of the major impediments to science has been - believe it or not -
> evolutionary biologists themselves. "Instead, the focus was not the study of
> the evolutionary process so much as the care and tending of the modern
> synthesis. Safeguarding an old concept, protecting “truths too fragile to
> bear translation” is scientific anathema."? If Woese is right, than this is
> one more example of science being impeded not by creationists or otherwise,
> but the scientific establishment itself.
> >
> >Of course, nothing Woese is saying here is challenging evolution in the
> broad sense. Then again, I think an interesting question to ask would be "If
> a certain view of evolution was being safeguarded and treated as beyond
> questioning, why was this the case?"
> >
> >
> >On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
> >
> > Carl Woese has co-authored another thought-provoking article entitled,
> How the Microbial World Saved Evolution from the Scylla of Molecular Biology
> and the Charybdis of the Modern Synthesis. He makes many startling claims,
> including:
> >>
> http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/REPRINTS/2009/WG%20How%20the%20microbial%20world%20saved%20evolution%20MMBR%202009.pdf<http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/%7Enigel/REPRINTS/2009/WG%20How%20the%20microbial%20world%20saved%20evolution%20MMBR%202009.pdf>
> >>"As for evolution, it had been developed from a phenomenological
> description centering around what was generally termed natural selection
> into the modern evolutionary synthesis through its union with Mendelian
> genetics. The modern evolutionary synthesis should have been the 20th
> century’s evolutionary bastion, the forefront of research into the
> evolutionary process. No such luck!
> >>The basic understanding of evolution, considered as a process, did not
> advance at all under its tutelage. The presumed fundamental explanation of
> the evolutionary process, “natural selection,” went unchanged and
> unchallenged from one end of the 20th century to the other. Was this because
> there was nothing more to understand about the nature of the evolutionary
> process? Hardly! Instead, the focus was not the study of the evolutionary
> process so much as the care and tending of the modern synthesis.
> Safeguarding an old concept, protecting “truths too fragile to bear
> translation” is scientific anathema. (The quote here is Alfred North
> Whitehead’s, and it continues thus: “A science which hesitates to forget its
> founders is lost” [32].) What makes the treatment of evolution by biologists
> of the last century insufferable scientifically is not the modern synthesis
> per se. Rather, it is the fact that molecular biology accepted the synthesis
> as a
> > complete theory unquestioningly—thereby giving the impression that
> evolution was essentially a solved scientific problem with its roots lying
> only within the molecular paradigm.
> >>There you have it. An entire century spent studying biology without
> seriously addressing evolution, without assigning importance to the study of
> the evolutionary process. Our understanding of biology, of biological
> organization, far from being near complete (as molecularists would have us
> believe), seems still in its infancy."
> >>Woese is not making any anti-evolutionary claim here. He is simply
> pointing out something I have long been saying – that the Modern Synthesis
> has not delivered a full understanding of evolutionary processes and that
> our understanding of evolution is still rather primitive (
> http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/the-logic-of-evolution/). What’s more, those who have embraced the Modern Synthesis as delivering a
> nearly complete understanding of evolutionary processes have a history is
> getting it wrong: they resisted symbiogenesis, neutral theory, lateral gene
> transfer, and deep homology. And in one sense, this is understandable, as
> symbiogenesis, neutral theory, lateral gene transfer, and deep homology all
> open the door, even if slightly, to a teleological interpretation of
> evolution.
> >>
> >>Mike
> >
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
>
> http://www.flickr.com/gift/
>
> ------------------------------
> *All new Yahoo! Mail - * <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>Get
> a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.113/2399 - Release Date: 09/27/09
> 17:52:00
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 28 21:19:16 2009