A Grand Bargain Over Evolution

NY Times ^ | August 23, 2009 | ROBERT WRIGHT

[neverdem]

THE “war” between science and religion is notable for the amount of civil disobedience on both sides. Most scientists and most religious believers refuse to be drafted into the fight. Whether out of a live-and-let-live philosophy, or a belief that religion and science are actually compatible, or a heartfelt indifference to the question, they’re choosing to sit this one out.

Still, the war continues, and it’s not just a sideshow. There are intensely motivated and vocal people on both sides making serious and conflicting claims.

There are atheists who go beyond declaring personal disbelief in God and insist that any form of god-talk, any notion of higher purpose, is incompatible with a scientific worldview. And there are religious believers who insist that evolution can’t fully account for the creation of human beings.

I bring good news! These two warring groups have more in common than they realize. And, no, it isn’t just that they’re both wrong. It’s that they’re wrong for the same reason. Oddly, an underestimation of natural selection’s creative power clouds the vision not just of the intensely religious but also of the militantly atheistic.

If both groups were to truly accept that power, the landscape might look different. Believers could scale back their conception of God’s role in creation, and atheists could accept that some notions of “higher purpose” are compatible with scientific materialism. And the two might learn to get along.

The believers who need to hear this sermon aren’t just adherents of “intelligent design,” who deny that natural selection can explain biological complexity in general. There are also believers with smaller reservations about the Darwinian story. They accept that God used evolution to do his creative work (“theistic evolution”), but think that, even so, he had to step in and provide special ingredients at some...

[Mr. Silverback]

Ping!

[muawiyah]

OK, we've got some new "clouds", the "underestimation of natural selection’s creative power" CLOUDS.

Made me think instantly of the Reverend James Cleveland, Walter Hawkins and the Hawkins Family, The Mighty CLOUDS of Joy, Shirley Caesar, and The Clark Sisters.

I remember where I was on the day after Reverend Cleveland passed on February 9, 1991.

I know there are folks who'd like to discuss Creationism and Evolution on this thread, but the Reverend Cleveland was the main driving force behind modern Gospel music ~ a creator in his own right. He grasped the evolution in modern electronics and sound recording and made it happen as Jesus' Own partner.

[Matchett-PI]

Interesting comments on this article:

I’m not sure if this link is restricted to subscribers or not, but here is Robert Wright’s editorial in the NYTimes today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23wright.html

Interesting comments on CS Lewis and the argument from moral law as well as on Simon Conway Morris. His book “Evolution of God” hasn’t been that well received in our circles as far as I can tell but it’s an interesting discussion.

Randy http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200908/0355.html

<>

Just grabbing onto one of his thoughts: “Even now, if chimps are gradually evolving toward greater intelligence, their evolutionary trajectory may be slowly converging on the same moral intuitions that human evolution long ago converged on.”

Humans are born with soft skulls that expand to accommodate brain growth. Apes have hard skulls that can’t expand and thus it is unlikely that chimps could ever develop the intelligence necessary to “evolve” to a higher state of conciousness. Furthermore, chimps in six million years of evolution have not done a thing to alter or improve their environment - something essential for social growth and development. Eliminate humans and give chimps another ten million years and they will still be living in the forest sucking up temites off of twigs.

Dick Fischer http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200908/0357.html

[Matchett-PI]

Other interesting comments that are related to the subject of this article:

Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:20:54 -0400
From: “Ted Davis”
Subject: Re: [asa] historical versus experimental sciences

I comment on this exchange below:

David Clounch 08/23/09 11:49 AM wrote:

Cameron said: [quote] Right away, that makes him a good deal more perceptive than many Darwinians, who still tout the party line of Eugenie Scott and Judge Jones that ID is not science (except when they run joyously through all the arguments to prove that it is falsified science, thus contradicting their premise). [unquote]

I cannot count the number of times on this list (and elsewhere) people have stated that ID cannot be tested and isn’t science. It is almost as if they are chanting a mantra. But if the NCSE people have argued that ID is falsified science then why are so many anti-IDers unaware of this?

***

Ted comments:

David, the use of both logically inconsistent claims about ID is really an old story. It goes back at least as far as the Arkansas creationism trial in the 1980s, when Michael Ruse convinced the late Judge Overton that “creationism” (which was clearly defined in context as YECism) is not science, b/c it’s not scientifically testable. The late neo-orthodox theologian, Langdon Gilkey, also convinced the judge that “creationism” is religion. The judge connected those dots and ruled that “creationism” can’t be taught in public school science classes. A very clear precedent, which the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v Dover case modeled in a Harrisburg courtroom a few years ago.

However, not long after the Arkansas trial, Ruse’s fellow philosophers, esp Larry Lauden, read him the riot act for a bad piece of courtroom philosophizing. “Creationism” is testable, they said, and it’s been shown wrong numerous times. Thus, it shouldn’t be part of biology classes not b/c it isn’t science, but b/c it’s just bad science. Very different conclusion.

You really can’t have it both ways.

As for ID, my own view (not shared by TDI or most ID advocates) is that ID is a talking point in philosophy of science, not science per se. I’ve defended that numerous times here and elsewhere and won’t reprise that here. The other part of my view (not shared by the NCSE or most ID opponents) is that ID can be discussed in public school science classes, as an example of differences of opinion in the philosophy of science. Note: this is not at all the same thing as “teaching ID as a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution” (I put those words in quotes to make sure that they stay together, if anyone anywhere comments on my view). I don’t believe it is such an alternative, nor has it ever been such IMO. Thus, IMO (not that of an attorney, obviously), Judge Jones’ decision is irrelevant to whether or not anyone could do this, since it doesn’t violate what he said can’t be done. This could perhaps have been a potentially winning hand in the Dover trial, but no one associated with the defense was interested pursuing it. The attorneys and their key witnesses all think that ID is science.

Ted http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200908/0360.html

bttt

[neverdem]

Thanks for the links. I only post FReebies.

[Matchett-PI]

You’re welcome.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

G-Cube? Where are you?

[count-your-change]

The Darwinist compromise with belief in the God of the Bible: We’ll accept Darwinism as fact and we’ll allow you to do so also.

Cut the fat out the article and that’s what’s left.

[GodGunsGuts]

That was my reaction exactly. You will be forgiven your religion as long as your religion concedes our religion. What a crock.

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Thanks neverdem! To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[SunkenCiv]

[dsc]

“The attorneys and their key witnesses all think that ID is science.”

Seems to me that a lot of people think science is something much greater than it is.

Science is a set of tools and methods that people use in seeking to understand what is. That’s all. It’s not the be-all and end-all of knowledge, and certainly not of creation.

[LiteKeeper]

“intelligent design,” who deny that natural selection can explain biological complexity in general

This is a straw man argument that won't hold water. Intelligent Design has never denied the power of natural selection...it is what accounts for speciation...what we deny is it's ability to created new species. That requires new information which cannot be created by chance mutations.

As usual, the argument is understated by the author, who apparently hasn't got a clue about what the real argument is.

[SuzyQue]

I honestly don’t understand that argument: “has never denied the power of natural selection...it is what accounts for speciation...what we deny is it’s ability to created new species”.

If I understand correctly, natural selection accounts for speciation (defined as the development of new species), but doesn’t account for its ability in the involvement of development of new species?

Argh! I just don’t get it. I have never understood the anti-evolution argument.

[LiteKeeper]

Speciation is the process of developing subspecies - not new species. A very simple example would be long haired dogs in cold climates and short haired dogs in hot climates...both descended from the same ancestors. The ancestors had dominant and recessive genes for both long and short hair. But over time, long haired dogs don’t survive in hot climates; short haired dogs don’t survive in cold climates. That is natural selection: no new bio information is developed; information for one or the other is lost. That is a very important part of the intelligent design theories.

[GodGunsGuts]

Excellent summary, LK!

[NicknamedBob]

"Intelligent Design has never denied the power of natural selection...it is what accounts for speciation...what we deny is it's ability to created new species. That requires new information which cannot be created by chance mutations."

Natural selection, and the mixing that occurs in every iteration of any new organism, is more than just slipping a jack of seashells into an existing deck. It is also slipping a whole handful of extra cards into the deck, or maybe letting a few fall out.

That's why the genome is organized into chromosomes. If all the information never changed, or changed in only minor aspects, you would need only one chromosome.

In other words, it can be like getting a repeated chapter in your book.

When those extra items allow nature to play with new ideas or expressions of structure or chemical capability, it produces an entirely new version of the old solitaire game.

[NicknamedBob]

"Speciation is the process of developing subspecies - not new species. A very simple example would be long haired dogs in cold climates and short haired dogs in hot climates...both descended from the same ancestors. The ancestors had dominant and recessive genes for both long and short hair. But over time, long haired dogs don’t survive in hot climates; short haired dogs don’t survive in cold climates. That is natural selection: no new bio information is developed; information for one or the other is lost. That is a very important part of the intelligent design theories."

That analysis is reasonable, but as usual, it suffers from a lack of comprehension of the power of "compound interest", or the nature of time on variation.

As previously posted in a different thread, one of the first abilities that evolved was the ability to evolve rapidly to adjust to changing circumstances.

We have difficulty perceiving this concept because we have seen too little evolutionary pressure in the time we've been looking for it.

An ability to grasp the concept of "geologic time" is essential to see how lifeforms morph and wriggle to escape the grasp of predation or the ferocious maw of hunger.

[SuzyQue]

Yes, I fail to understand the difference between speciation and subspeciation. It stands to reason that if beings change to develop into creatures that can better exist in an environment, then given enough time they will develop into a new species. What is the mechanism whereby creatures evolve, but stop just short of evolving into a new species?

I don’t think it works - if you accept subspeciation then speciation follows logically.