Room for Discussing Design in Evolution?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Randy

There is the rub, isn’t it? There appears to be design, but where and how does one quantify it?

That is the rub. I agree that everything looks designed because it is “designed” (whatever that means). Evolution might still be true. These are separable concerns. Life might be designed, but there is no way to state that coherently in scientific discourse in the language of science. I observe that science is limited, and that is perhaps the best way to give account of its silence on design.

Of note, “design” to me is a theological statement, that God created with intention and purpose. It is not a coherent scientific concept, in that I have not seen it brought forward in a scientifically coherent way.

@Michael_Callen

If, as I understand it, evolution is a narrative , and not a force , it seems that the scientific discussion would have to ascribe the purpose seen in what has evolved (malleability or neural advantage in Randy’s example),

Well, not quite. Evolution is not a narrative or a force. At an essential level, evolution is the best understanding from science for a large range of different patterns we see in nature. It is such a powerful explanation that it sometimes becomes a narrative in science, and more problematically a narrative outside of science. There is nothing essential that requires this. Often science adopts language of “purpose” without meaning purpose too. Science speaks in its own language, and we should dispense with the naive belief that it is easily translatable to other discourse.

@Michael_Callen

to a function that arose via mutations that were selected due to advantage or benefit alone. Such that, after the fact, the benefits described above were only coincidentally realized after the fact (because they could not have been designed for that purpose.)

That is not what we think in modern evolutionary science. Moreover, science does not make claims about God’s design. It is silent on God.

@Michael_Callen

Whereas, when we have the same discussion “outside of science,” we would (despite our philosophy or theology) tend to describe the globular brain shape, for instance, as a design that was implemented for a certain purpose (to achieve the benefits described.) This would occur naturally in conversation (as it does) because this is how we, as intelligent beings think.

Yes. That is true. That is legitimate as long as we carefully bound those statements as beyond the limits of science.

@Michael_Callen

Are there conversations, such as this one, that take place in silos where one must “switch hats”? Or am I somehow missing some major aspect that allows you who operate regularly in this space to view features that operate significantly within these two magisteria simultaneously?

Yes and yes.

My scientific work is siloed off, and would not use much of the language here. That is appropriate. Scientific discourse is designed to enable theologically neutral progress to be made in understanding the world with an agreed upon set of rules. That is why, for example, both @Patrick and I both mean the same thing when we describe “science”. We are accepting it as it is, as a place of common ground, common rules, and common discovery.

The way I am able to operate and be public in the theology-science conversation is that I am really clear about what is my scientific claims, and what is my theological claims. I can say just about anything in theology. I have to play by the rules of science when I make scientific claims.

I accept those rules. I enforce those rules. I teach those rules. I defend those rules. The Rules of the Game

Those rules, in fact, are why and how I can operate in this space without calling down the wrath of other scientists. One of my goals here is to help other Christians understand this too, so they can find a confident voice alongside me.