Behind the Shadow of Oz

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Wayne_Rossiter so glad to have you here. Thanks for joining us.

@Wayne_Rossiter

Hi all. I think it’s a stretch to say that I left the ID community. I interact with ID folks almost every day. What I had suggested to Joshua was that I had some concerns and reservations about the current direction (and what I perceive as stagnation or failure) of the ID enterprise. I could get into more detail about this, but it has been an in-house discussion, not some public display.

Thanks for clarifying, and setting my faulty summary straight. I’ll look forward to seeing how things evolve.

@Wayne_Rossiter

Additionally, I think one of the things that ID has gotten right is to critique attempts by the adaptionists to explain everything by some Darwinian process. It’s been interesting to see both paleontology and phylogenetics show the power of neutral evolution in spades. Joshua and I are very much on the same page here, as are a few other ID folks. This of course is not specific to ID, but ID has latched onto it (whether from Gould and Benton or Kimura, Hughes and the like).

Well sort of. As you know, this strict “Darwinian” evolution of which ID is so opposed to was falsified in science back in the 1960’s and 70’s. It is a total anachronism to treat this as a new finding. As you say, neutral evolution ends up being extremely powerful, and in DNA it dominates almost everything.

@Wayne_Rossiter

So, while many may want to tar and feather me as being anti-science, I feel I’m actually trying to be consistent with the leading edge of modern science. Modern science has demonstrated that you need things other than DE to get the job done. It may also be more than just neutral evolution atop the hill.

This is all solid ground too. There are more mechanisms than just neutral evolution too. There are a large number of non-Darwinian processes.

@Wayne_Rossiter

The “front-loaded” arguments for evolution suggest that life was engineered to navigate adaptive space in a non-random way. This sets up a third tower of evolutionary models. 1) Neutral evolution (“chance” and no selection). 2) Darwinian evolution (chance and selection). 3) Front-loading (directed evolution and selection).

That last one, I have a much harder time agreeing with, as this could just as easily be explained by selection for mechanisms that enable evolvability. It is certainly not evidence of directed evolution.

@Wayne_Rossiter

In closing, the real issue (which I also raise in my book) is what to do with humanity, given the theological implications.

I totally agree. This is really the heart of the issue.

@Wayne_Rossiter

I don’t see any mathematical reason why we must contend that there was no actual Adam & Eve.

What does that mean?

@Wayne_Rossiter

But, based on what I’ve already said, I don’t advance a special creation of Homo sapiens . Though, to repeat myself, that would be fine if it were true. I have blogged extensively on the thorny theological issues that arise from this, and have obviously critiqued TEists for their rather glib dealing in the public on this issue. It is an issue, and we all need to talk about it openly and honestly.

I agree that the way it has been dealt with is very glib at times, full of strawmen everywhere.

---

Thanks for joining us @Wayne_Rossiter. Really glad to have you here.