James Tour: Friendship Across Disagreements

Peaceful Science
, ,
82

Your comment shows that you did not understand my post. I’ve always made a distinction between how a word is used in popular discussions of origins (quite frequently italicizing this or similar phrases, as here) and how it might be used in other contexts.

I have no problem, for example, if population geneticists want to define evolution as “change in allele frequency within a population.” If that definition is useful within population genetics, then fine; I don’t try to legislate what language specialist practitioners use when talking to each other, in-house. But when scientists move out of their specialist confines, to have conversations with members of the general public, they need to be aware of how members of the general public use terms.

Most Americans couldn’t give you a clear statement of what an “allele” is to save their lives, and when they talk about evolution they aren’t talking about alleles or other concepts from population genetics. They mean by “evolution” the view that human beings descended from apes, and further back, from reptiles, and further back, from fish, etc. And by “creationism” they mean the view that human beings did not descend from apes, and reptiles, and fish, etc., but were specially created by a discrete divine action (as were all other basic types of living things, in the creationist view).

My objection to Moran is not that he wants to achieve a coherent definition of “evolution” for scientific purposes. My objection is that he’s being silly if he thinks that confusion among non-scientists about the meaning of the term “evolution” is the cause of the conflict between creationism and evolution. There is no confusion regarding the central claim of evolution; the creationists know perfectly well what Darwin, Mayr, Dawkins, Futuyma, etc. think happened during the history of life on this planet, and they deny that things happened that way. The dispute is not caused by ignorance of the scientific meaning of “evolution”; the dispute is caused by differing opinions about what happened in the past.

So if Larry wants to wrangle in his columns with other scientists about how evolution should be defined for scientific purposes (and it’s amusing to read Larry, by his own admission with zero publications in any peer-reviewed journal of evolutionary theory, lecturing Ernst Mayr, one of the founders of the Modern Synthesis, on how terms related to evolution should be used!), let him do so. I might even agree with much of what he says about problems with various scientific definitions of “evolution.” It doesn’t change the fact that as far as general cultural usage is concerned, people like Behe and Denton aren’t creationists, but accept evolution, i.e., they reject the story in Genesis as an account of the history of life on earth, affirm descent with modification, and affirm subhuman ancestry for (at least the physical aspect of) human beings.

83

But “Eddie” feels qualified to lecture both them, and anyone else, on the subject. So he must have a truly impressive number of peer-reviewed publications on evolutionary biology. He’s just too modest to tell us.

2 Likes
84

You seem to read my posts too hastily, because you miss much. I specifically indicated that I was not lecturing biologists on how they should use scientific terms when talking privately among themselves. But I can claim some knowledge about how terms have been used over the past 100 years in public discussions of creation and evolution. Long before most of the people here were posting on the subject, and before some of them were even born, I was reading up on creationism and evolution. So I’m very familiar with the public language, and it’s the public language, not the private technical language, that I’ve been commenting on. The difficulty with your own use of terms on the subject is that it coincides neither with popular usage nor with that of scientists such as John Harshman, but is an idiosyncrasy of your own.

Of course, you’ve pretty much admitted that your usage of terms is shaped by your desire not to give any ammunition to ID proponents, i.e., that your usage of terms is partly shaped by political considerations. I prefer to take my usage of terms from general usage, and keep my political recommendations separate from questions of definition. Thus, you call Behe and Denton creationists (even though you know full well that they don’t read Genesis as history, don’t regard the Bible as giving scientific information, accept common descent, and overtly deny being creationists), because they are allies in the ID movement with creationists, and you want to tar them with the same brush (a political motivation), whereas I don’t call them creationists because their position doesn’t warrant that label. You’re much more willing to politicize language than I am. (As we saw also in your use of “insurrection” to characterize a group of protestors honking horns, clogging streets with parked vehicles, and waving signs.)

85

Do any journals of evolutionary theory exist, and if so, what are their impact factors?

How does one lecture a dead person?

Did Mayr ever publish anything in a journal of evolutionary theory, Eddie? If so, please cite those papers.

86

From Moran’s article:

Gould argues that an understanding of the true importance of the biological definition is absolutely essential to understanding why the general public is confused. He is especially concerned about emphasizing the lack of progress and direction in the definition of biological evolution. He advocates that scientists owe it to the general public to teach the biological definition.

I don’t mention these differences to lament, or complain, or to criticize astronomical usage. After all, their concept of ‘evolution’ remains more faithful to etymology and the original English definition; whereas our Darwinian reconstruction has virtually reversed the original meaning. In this case, since neither side will or should give up its understanding of “evolution”—astronomers because they have retained an original and etymologically correct meaning, evolutionists because their redefinition expresses the very heart of their central and revolutionary concept of life’s history—our best solution lies simply in exposing and understanding the legitimate differences, and in explaining the good reasons behind the disparity of use.

In this way, at least, we may avoid confusion and the special frustration generated when prolonged wrangles arise from mis-understandings about words, rather than genuine disputes about things and causes in nature. Evolutionary biologists must remain especially sensitive to this issue, because we still face considerable opposition, based on conventional hopes and fears, to our emphasis on an unpredictable history of life evolving in no inherently determined direction. Since astronomical ‘evolution’ upholds both contrary positions—predictability and directionality—evolutionary biologists need to emphasize their own distinctive meaning, especially since the general public feels much more comfortable with the astronomical sense—and will therefore impose this more congenial definition upon the history of life if we do not clearly explain the logic, the evidence, and the sheer fascination of our challenging conclusion.

(Gould, S.J. (2002) “What Does the Dreaded ‘E’ Word Mean Anyway?” in I HAVE LANDED Harmony Books, New York p. 250-252)

I agree with Gould. That’s why I think it’s important to explain the real biological definition of evolution as a change in the heritable characteristics of a population over time. We can explain that this is a minimal definition, and that there’s more to evolution than this, but we shouldn’t back away from the real meaning of the term since it conveys some important messages. If we cave into pressure from the general public to make evolution into something they can understand, with all their biases, then we will have lost the battle before we even begin.

I should add that I only provided the link to that article because I had no primary source available for Futuyma’s definition. I did not intend for the article to itself become a topic of discussion. But I’m happy to continue that discussion regardless.

87

Fair enough. I looked at the article, saw Futuyma’s definition, but then went on to read the rest of what Moran said, and that inspired me to make a comment on Moran’s remarks. There probably isn’t much value in taking up a discussion of those remarks in themselves.

By the way, much of what he says (about the inadequacy of various scientific definitions) I can agree with, but I don’t agree with the last part you quote, i.e., that the general public’s idea of evolution is some error that biologists must not “cave into”; the general public’s idea is in fact primarily Darwin’s notion of “descent with modification,” and therefore is more concerned with phenotypical than genotypical change. “Evolution” referred to visible, phenotypical changes long before it referred to changes in allele frequency in populations and so on.

And from the religious or theological point of view, it is the visible changes, not the invisible shifts in allele frequency (which in many cases don’t show themselves by any change in physical form), that create the “evolution vs. creation” debates. It’s not as if, if we could educate Christian fundamentalists to understand evolution as “change in allele frequency” (or some other such definition), that they would say, “Oh, well, if evolution means just change in allele frequency, I as a Christian am fine with that; I was only opposed to evolution because I thought it meant that people evolved from fish.” In fact, the people who define evolution as “change in allele frequency” or the like do affirm that people evolved from fish, so the point in dispute does not vanish, even with the “real biological meaning of evolution” explained. Why Moran or Gould or anyone would think that teaching a different formal definition of the word “evolution” would make any difference, I can’t imagine. It seems to be another case where academics spend so long in their ivory towers, talking only to other specialists, that they lose common sense, and say things that are silly.

88

We’ve been thru this discussion many time before, but it seems you still do not understand my position. I will try lay it out as clearly as I can, and hopefully will not see any need to respond further:

There does exist a religious/political movement that seeks to promote doubt regarding the scientific soundness of the theory of evolution and to replace it with, or suggest as alternatives, other explanations for how the diverse forms of life on earth have arisen on earth, explanations which entail the actions of a god or god-like intelligent being, and which are not supported by existing scientific evidence.

This movement has been consistently referred to, in scholarly, scientific, legal and vernacular contexts as “creationism”.

The Discovery Institue and, specifically, its members Michael Behe and Michael Denton have been and remain part of this movement.

Therefore, it is appropriate and consistent with existing usage to refer to the DI and these individuals as “creationists.”

This is not to deny that there are other usages of the term according to which it would not be appropriate to refer to Behe, Denton and the DI as “creationist.” I accept that there are several different contexts in which the term “creationism” can be correctly used, and the specific meaning of the term may differ depending on the context.

I don’t think they are referring solely to creationists. There are other people who do not understand many aspects of evolutionary theory. Some of them might even be evolutionary biologists!

In any event, I think the value in having people understand the correct meaning of a term when it is used by scientists should be obvious, especially for those hoping to understand the scientific discussion of that term and the topic to which it pertains.

1 Like
89

This is the first time you have acknowledged this. Had you acknowledged it a year or two ago, when I first challenged you on your originally unqualified statement that Behe and Denton were creationists, we might have had a pleasanter – and shorter – discussion about the usage. But for some reason you have seemed to prefer increasing the degree of division between conversation partners over trying to find common ground.

Since from the beginning “creationism” has affirmed that evolution (to any significant degree) never happened, ID is only “creationism” in those cases where it denies that evolution (to any significant degree) happened. And not all members of the DI, and certainly not all supporters of ID, deny that evolution (to any significant degree) happened.

What confuses you is that ID, considered on its social side (as opposed to its intellectual side, as a theory of design detection) is an alliance between people who believe that evolution happened and people who do not believe that evolution happened. This alliance “does not compute” (as the robot from Lost in Space would have said) from your point of view. Why, you ask, would people who believe that evolution happened ally themselves with people who don’t? And the answer you come up with is political: their apparent endorsement of bacterium-to-man descent is a mere smokescreen, to conceal a deeper agenda of turning America into a theocracy.

It is odd that it does not occur to you that such an agenda would not make sense. Why would someone like Behe, a Catholic, want to bring about a theocracy, in which (American populist religion being what it is) Protestant, Biblicist theology (with its generally hostile attitude toward the cult of Mary and the saints, and toward Church doctrine not directly derived from the Bible) would be the dominant social ethos? In such an America, Catholics would be second-class citizens. The many Catholics in the ID movement and the DI specifically – Gauger, Sternberg, Gage, Richards, etc. – must surely not be attracted by a vision of America in which the likes of Billy Graham or Ken Ham are leading spiritual and cultural figures. And what about the agnostics, Deists, and Jews that are Discovery Fellows? Would Denton, Berlinski, or Klinghoffer like to see America declare itself a Christian republic?

The alternative interpretation, i.e., that Behe, and the other Catholics, and the agnostics, Deists, Jews, etc. who are involved in ID support ID because they happen to think its line of reasoning regarding design in nature is correct, not because they want to change the politics of America, does not seem to have occurred to you.

It would be so easy to make concessions such as, “I agree that Denton and Behe are not creationists, as that term has usually been used, but they ally themselves socially with creationists, and for that alliance I blame them.” Such a position I could understand, even if I did not agree, because it would show respect for what writers say about what views they do and do not hold. It is the lack of respect that I have objected to.

You once said that you were an atheist but not a materialist. Well, suppose someone was convinced that any atheist must be a materialist, and went on to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty and/or political motivation for trying to conceal your materialism? Would you regard that as a fair intellectual procedure? Or would you ask them to listen patiently to the list of things you believe that separate your atheism from materialism? I assume you would do the latter. Common courtesy, then, would suggest that you should do the same thing when someone says that he is an ID proponent but not a creationist. Even if you think at the start that all ID proponents must logically also be creationists, basic intellectual courtesy requires you to give the ID proponents their chance to convince you otherwise.

These are our differences on this subject, as I see them. And like you, I am content to leave them where they are, if you see no way of moving into some middle ground.

91

Jeanson and Behe accept common descent, with the former accepting a limited version and the latter a version that extends to the earliest lifeforms. The uniting thread between both men is their resolve that intelligence (God for Jeanson, God, aliens, or time travellers for Behe) must have been available before evolution could produce the array of living organisms today. Jeanson is clearly a creationist, and I put Behe in between the camp of Jeanson-type creationists and that of the baby-eating evolutionists, as Behe’s beliefs slightly align with certain aspects of modern evolutionary theory.

92

OTOH, are they not both active members of religious/political organizations that “seek to promote doubt regarding the scientific soundness of the theory of evolution and to replace it with, or suggest as alternatives, other explanations for how the diverse forms of life on earth have arisen on earth, explanations which entail the actions of a god or god-like intelligent being, and which are not supported by existing scientific evidence”?

This is beyond dispute for anyone not so misinformed as to think that YEC and/or ID are supported by existing scientific evidence.

1 Like
93

Yes. Without the input of intelligence, neither men think evolution would be possible. In other words, God must have done it.

1 Like
94

If:

  • Darwin’s definition of “evolution” is the same as your definition
  • Your definition works for Behe too
  • Evolution, to Behe, is non-Darwinian*

then

  • Darwin’s definition of “evolution” is non-Darwinian.

That seems wrong.

But all this is arguing semantics and so is effectively just a distraction from evidential discussion.

*in the sense of requiring an intelligent designer, not in the sense of including subsequent ideas from genetics.

95

You must understand that definitions are minimal and inclusive. Darwin’s definition of evolution was not a definition of “Darwinism”. It didn’t mention natural selection or any other reason for “modification”. Definitions are not generally encyclopedic.

True. Which is exactly what I’ve been saying.

96

Note that this would apply to many things. For example, to use your phrasing, without the input of intelligence, neither Newton nor Boyle thought the solar system would be possible. But I don’t hear anyone here ridiculing Newton or Boyle for thinking that “God must have done it.” So apparently thinking that both God (understood as a designing intelligence) and natural causes are responsible for the existence of things is not in itself condemned around here as “unscientific”, “fundamentalist”, etc. But when the subject is biological origins, rather than physical/cosmic origins, the “God must have done it” (uttered in tones of ridicule) seems to come up a lot.

Just an observation, not an argument against your characterization of Behe. He does, indeed, think that a designing intelligence must have been involved at some point. But then, so did Alfred Russel Wallace, co-founder with Darwin of evolution by natural selection. (It’s an interesting question why we have Darwin Day celebrations, but not Wallace Day celebrations. Of for that matter, Newton Day, Boyle Day, James Clerk-Maxwell Day, etc. celebrations, especially since the physics and chemistry produced by those others has had long-term practical benefits for the human race far exceeding any contribution of Darwin’s. But that deserves a column and discussion of its own.)

97

Newton and Boyle lived centuries ago, and did not have access to the techniques, knowledge, ideas and data that are available today. They were working within the limitations of their time, and should not be ridiculed because they reached conclusions based on what was available to them.

Behe and Jeanson are not so limited. They are not hampered by lack of access or availability, but by their own refusal to look.

(This is so obvious a response I don’t believe for a moment that you didn’t think of it. But you chose to ignore it)

Newton, Boyle, Wallace, Maxwell etc are not demonised by pseudoscientific charlatans the way Darwin is.

(Again, an obvious response - it’s been given here before - that you must have anticipated but chosen to ignore)

3 Likes
98

I have a hard time believing someone as well-educated and erudite as you keep proclaiming yourself to be cannot understand the relevant differences here.

4 Likes
99

Given Newton’s interest in Alchemy, I would hardly think an argument that ‘Newton thought it, therefore modern-day people should not be ridiculed for thinking it too’ would hold much water.

2 Likes
100

Here’s a clue: Why do evolutionists not also consider Ken Miller or Francis Collins to be unscientific in their ideas regarding biological origins even though they also believe “God must have done it”?

1 Like
101

In other words, the motivation for having a Darwin Day is reactive; it’s political and sociological. Which, of course, I knew. My question was rhetorical.

It’s not as if a group of objective, open-minded, public-spirited people sat down, and said, “You know, we have days celebrating great political and social figures, people like Martin Luther King; why not have days celebrating great scientists who have contributed so much to our world? Let’s draw up a short list of the greatest scientists and dedicate days of the year to them. Let’s see, which scientists have made cultural contributions through science on the same level as those of Martin Luther King in social justice? Well, there’s Archimedes, and Galileo, and Kepler, and Newton, and Boyle, and Harvey, and Pasteur…” No, the origin of Darwin Day had nothing to do with any such line of thought. It was purely a culture-war project in reaction to a particular (largely American) situation.

Anyhow, my remark on Darwin Day was a side-point. The main point was that highly competent scientists have thought that both design and mechanical explanations have a role to play in origins discussions.

102

In the case of Newton, someone else had already taken his birthdate as a day of celebration.

The pertinent issue, however, is the number of highly incompetent scientists who have also expressed that opinion.

4 Likes