Reflectorites
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:17:54 -0400, Steven P Crawford wrote:
Welcome to the Reflector to Steven. Maybe he can tell us more about
himself?
SC>I was reading a book today entitled Darwinism Defeated? which featured a
>written debate between Phillip Johnson and Denis Lamoureaux (sp?).
It is Lamoureux.
SC>Johnson held to his usual position, except for a few comments that seemed
>to indicate he was vacillating from some of his ideas written in the
>early 90's..
I haven't yet read the book, but I doubt that Johnson "was vacillating". In
my experience most of the criticisms of Johnson misunderstand his
position.
A reviewer of the book points out that the book is very unbalanced in
length in favour of Lamoureux's side:
"Though Johnson's name is given priority on the book's cover, he
and his supporters actually contribute only 41 pages of text,
compared to Lamoureux and his supporters, who contribute 106
pages." (Helder M., "No Bridge-Building Here," review of Phillip
E. Johnson, Denis O. Lamoureux, & J.I. Packer, "Darwinism
Defeated?: The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins,"
Origins & Design, Access Research Network, Issue 38, Vol. 20,
No. 1, Spring 2000, pp.34-35, p.34).
SC>In contrast, Lamoreaux holds to a "teleological evolution"
>aka "evolutionary creationist" position, which seems to be nothing more
>than a new name given to an old idea (theistic evolution).
Agreed. In fact it should be called "theistic *naturalistic* evolution"
because at no point does it differ empirically from fully naturalistic
evolution.
SC>A big point of tension in the debate was whether or not the idea of
>evolution, in and of itself, is anti-God and anti-theistic. Johnson's
>thesis was that the whole evolutionary hypothesis is automatically and
>inherently atheistic.
I doubt that accurately reflects Johnson's position. In Darwin on Trial
Johnson says that God *could* create through a natural evolutionary
process:
"I believe that a God exists who could create out of nothing if He
wanted to do so, but who might have chosen to work through a
natural evolutionary process instead. (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial," 1993, p.14)
What Johnson's position is, is that "evolution" *as it is defined in
mainstream science today* is fully materialistic and hence effectively
"atheistic".
SC>To hold to evolution is to give up on God or at
>least relegate Him to the sideline or the backstage, turning Him into a
>deistical being. Lamoureaux vigorously challenged this assertion. He
>claimed that, while some scientists have believed this (e.g. Richard
>Dawkins), it is not a logical necessity for evolution to have any
>metaphysical implications one way or the other.
No one would deny that, but it is a straw man. The debate is not over some
idealised meaning of what "evolution" *might* mean, but over what
"evolution" really *does* mean in mainstream science today.
It is typical of TEs to dismiss "Dawkins" as though he was some fringe
character. But in fact Dawkins is the Oxford Professor for the Public
Understanding of Science!
What Lamoureux, and all the TEs in my experience, do is use the word
"evolution" equivocally. They may not even be conscious that they are
doing it. To them "evolution" is ultimately a God-guided natural process (if
it is not, then in what sense is it theistic?). But to mainstream science
"evolution" is a totally *undirected* natural process.
The simple test would be if a Christian scientist tried to claim that
"evolution" included the idea that God guided natural processes to produce
life in the first place and bridge the major design transitions that naturalistic
evolution has so many problems explaining. Such a meaning would be
within the meaning of what "theistic evolution" could mean:
"Theistic Evolution. By "theistic" evolution is meant the belief that
a theistic God used an evolutionary process he had created to
produce all living species of life. In addition, "theistic" means that
God performed at least one miracle after his original creation of the
universe ex nihilo ... Otherwise, there is no difference between
theism and deism on the matter of origins. " (Geisler N.L., "Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," 1999, p.233).
If such a theistic evolutionist was a biologist he/she would quickly find out
what "evolution" *really* means in mainstream science! That is because if
God was allowed in as a possible explanation of even one major origin
event, then it would no longer be "evolution" *in the sense that mainstream
scientists" use it.
Proof of this is in my recent post of Mike Behe's letter to SCIENCE in
which he points out that he is, in effect, a God-guided evolutionist, but that
possibility is utterly rejected by mainstream science, as it is by TEs like
Lamoureux (Behe was actually a member of the Johnson team in this
book):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:49:49 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/288/5467/813?ck=3Dnck#EL74
>
>[...]
>
>Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism 7 July 2000
>
>Michael J. Behe,
>Professor of Biological Sciences
>Lehigh University
>
>[...]
>
>Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I
>clearly write in my book "Darwin's Black Box" (which Scott cites) that I
>am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In
>fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that
>Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."
>Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science
>Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology
>is not invisible, it is empirically detectable.
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC>It is strictly a
>physical theory of origins, and anyone who tries to extend it to the
>moral, spiritual, social, etc., realms is making a philosophical leap of
>logic. This would include Johnson.
No doubt evolution *could* be "strictly a physical theory of origins" but
that is not how it *is* used in mainstream science today, which is to utterly
reject, on materialist-naturalist philosophical grounds, any consideration of
design or purpose.
For example, consider how Ernst Mayr, arguably the world's leading
evolutionist, defines evolution in this month's Scientific American, as
rejecting Lamoreux's "teleological evolution":
"Third, Darwin's theory of natural selection made any invocation of
teleology unnecessary...cosmic teleology, an intrinsic process
leading life automatically to ever greater perfection, is fallacious,
with all seemingly teleological phenomena explicable by purely
material processes" (Mayr E., "Darwin's Influence on Modern
Thought," Scientific American, Vol. 283, No. 1, pp.67-71, July
2000, pp.70-71).
It is not "Johnson" who is "making a philosophical leap", it is Lamoureux.
Johnson is describing "evolution", *as it is held by mainstream science
today*, accurately. It is the Lamoureux's of this world who have their own
private, idealised, definition of what "evolution" is.
Evidence of this is that no mainstream evolutionist has ever denied that
Johnson is defining what they mean by "evolution", accurately. OTOH no
mainstream evolutionist has ever supported the TEs definition. On the
contrary, mainstream evolutionists like the atheist Steven Weinberg have
grudgingly praised Johnson, as ""The most respectable academic critic of
evolution":
"The most respectable academic critic of evolution may currently be
Professor Phillip Johnson of the University of California School of
Law." (Weinberg S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," 1992, p.247).
while at the same time criticising the "religious liberals" (by which I am
assuming he means TEs), as "even farther in spirit from scientists than are
fundamentalists" and "not even wrong":
"Religious liberals are in one sense even farther in spirit from
scientists than are fundamentalists and other religious conservatives.
At least the conservatives like the scientists tell you that they
believe in what they believe because it is true...Wolfgang Pauli was
once asked whether he thought that a particularly ill-conceived
physics paper was wrong. He replied that such a description would
be too kind-the paper was not even wrong. I happen to think that
the religious conservatives are wrong in what they believe, but at
least they have not forgotten what it means really to believe
something. The religious liberals seem to me to be not even
wrong." (Weinberg S., 1992, pp.257-258).
SC>I found Lamoureaux's statements to this effect to be fascinating and
>provocative. This is such a new notion to my thinking that I'm wondering
>if it's a commonly held concept.
Lamoureux's particular version of Theistic (Naturalistic) Evolution is only
"a commonly held concept" among Christian academic theistic
evolutionists. In order to survive in the secular academic world in good
standing with their scientific materialistic peers, TEs have invested the
word "evolution" with a meaning that their scientific materialistic peers
don't hold.
However, this illusion of peace has been bought at a price. It then brings
them into collision with the majority of their fellow Christians who define
evolution the way the mainstream scientific community defines it.
So theistic evolutionists tend to spend most of their time and effort arguing
against the positions that the majority of their fellow Christians hold rather
than attacking the positions of the scientific materialists. Which is *exactly*
what Lamoureux is doing.
SC>I would appreciate anyone's critique of
>the idea that evolution -- in and of itself -- carries no necessary
>metaphysical claims either for or against God
[...]
No one, including Phil Johnson, would argue against that: "evolution -- in
and of itself " is not necessarily metaphysically opposite to "God". What is
necessarily opposite to God, is atheism (i.e. "there is no God"), or
"materialism" (i.e. matter is all there is") or naturalism (i.e. "nature is all
there is").
So one could believe in a "theistic" evolution which was not necessarily
metaphysically opposite to "God", as long as one did not mean by
"evolution" that it was atheistic, materialistic, or naturalistic, in the above
senses of the word.
But it *is* in that atheistic, materialistic, or naturalistic sense of the word
that "evolution" is meant today by the mainstream scientific community.
For Lamoureux to claim that the "evolution" that he believes in is the same
"evolution" that mainstream science today believes in, is IMHO bordering
on self-delusion.
Another simple test would be how Lamoureux would answer a Gallup
pollster, given these three alternatives:
"[1] God created man pretty much in his present form at one time
within the last 10,000 years. [2] Man has developed over millions of
years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
including man's creation. [3] Man has developed over millions of
years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this
process." (Robinson B.A., "Public Beliefs about Evolution and
Creation," March 2000. Numbers in square brackets not in original.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm)
The three positions are tabulated on that web page under the labels: "Belief
system": [1] "Creationist view"; [2] "Theistic evolution"; [3] "Naturalistic
Evolution":
Lamoureux would presumably have to answer [2], as I and presumably Phil
Johnson would. Thus Lamoureux would be included in the 40% of the total
who believe in "Theistic evolution"
" [1] [2] [3]
Everyone 47% 40% 9%"
But then Lamoureux would be offside with the majority of scientists:
" [1] [2] [3]
Scientists 5% 40% 55%"
While the poll doesn't differentiate among these "Scientists", a survey by
Larson & Witham reported in NATURE, showed that among *leading
scientists" (i.e. members of the NAS), who were "Biological scientists"
only 5.5% believed in God:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0_fs.html
23 July 1998
Nature 394, 313 (1998) (c) Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Leading scientists still reject God
[...]
Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of
the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and
immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%,
respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%.
Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We
found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3%
in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of
belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers
slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison
figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1."
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if the Gallup organisation had polled the NAS's biological scientists it
would have received a breakdown something like:
[1] [2] [3]
NAS Biological
Scientists 0% 5% 95%
A result like this would confirm Johnson's claim that the "evolution" that
the leading evolutionists believe in is not the same "evolution" that the TEs
believe in.
SC>P.S. I think that Lamoureaux won the debate.
How one judges the outcome of such debates depends on one's prior
philosophical position (which one may not even be aware of).
Although I have not yet read the book, I doubt that Lamoureux could win
a debate against Phil Johnson. I debated Denis when he was a member of
this Reflector back in 1995-96, and although I am just a layman and it was
early days for me in the creation/evolution debate, I was less than
impressed.
Here is how Helder judged the result in the above review:
"Lamoureux identifies Johnson as the "most important
antievolutionist in the world today" (p. 9). Nevertheless, he
discusses very little of Johnson's actual position-notably
overlooking the key argument of the design movement, which is
that design is empirically detectable. Instead, Lamoureux
characterizes design advocates as deriving their ideas from the book
of Genesis. He writes: "Most Christian believers would agree that
we should not use the Bible in constructing scientific theories on
astronomy (e.g., an earth-centered universe) or reproductive
biology (e.g., the idea that infertility is limited to barren women).
The use of Genesis 1 to justify a view of biological origins is every
bit as precarious" (p. 40). Yet supporters of design do not appeal to
Genesis l. Both Meyer and Behe discuss the empirical criterion for
identifying the products of an intelligent designer-namely, specified
small probability." (Helder M., 2000, p.34).
Helder concludes:
"Perhaps the most distressing aspect of these debates is that
Lamoureux and his team frequently descend to questioning
Johnson's credentials even to speak on the subject of evolution.
This kind of ad hominem attack is not what we expect in a scholarly
exchange. It is Caldwell who employs the tactic most vigorously.
He charges that "Johnson confuses and conflates factual and
theoretical systems in science," and that thus "he is not fit to be a
critic of science education." He avers that '"Johnson's motives as an
educator must be seen as suspect," (p. 129); that he "obfuscates"
and "misrepresents the writings of Karl Popper; that he "misleads
the reader"; that his scholarship has "no integrity"; and that he is
bent on mere "indoctrination" (pp. 133-135). These are strong
words, and they reflect much more negatively on the person using
them than on Johnson himself." (Helder M., 2000, p.35)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who rejected natural selection on religious or philosophical grounds
or simply because it seemed too random a process to explain evolution
continued for many years to put forward alternative schemes with such
names as orthogenesis, nomogenesis, aristogenesis or the "omega principle"
of Teilhard de Chardin, each scheme relying on some built-in tendency or
drive toward perfection or progress. All these theories were finalistic: they
postulated some form of cosmic teleology, of purpose or program. The
proponents of teleological theories, for all their efforts, have been unable to
find any mechanisms (except supernatural ones) that can account for their
postulated finalism." (Mayr E., "Evolution," Scientific American, Vol. 239,
No. 3, pp.39-47, September 1978, p.42)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 20 2000 - 16:56:15 EDT