Thinking About Evolution...and Progressive Creation

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

I think it’s simple: they know they are badly wrong and that their position cannot be defended.

Those two things aren’t necessarily tied together. There’s a difference between, “I’m pretty sure my conclusion is right, but I don’t know enough technical detail to argue for it very convincingly to someone who knows a lot about the field and has prepared rebuttals,” and “I suspect deep down that the view I’m advocating is wrong, but I need to hold onto it for personal reasons, so I’ll submit such weak arguments as I think might pass muster among the non-critical, and back out silently if someone walks into the room who can demolish the arguments.”

For example, over at BioLogos, Darrel Falk, Kathryn Applegate, and Karl Giberson regularly ignored critiques of their published words, both on scientific and theological matters, and while I would agree that in many cases the reason was that that they did not think they knew enough (about theology, about current evolutionary theory, etc.) to defend their positions, and therefore deemed silence a wiser strategy than engagement, I think they sincerely believed that their positions were not badly wrong, but in fact right. I think they thought that theology and/or biology supported their claims, but were aware of their own inadequacy to defend those claims.

One of Falk’s tactics, when he was incapable of carrying on an argument against a trained opponent, was to try to bring in a “heavy hitter” to carry the burden of argument for him. Thus, he would bring in Ayala to attack Meyer’s book on the origin of life, apparently because he (Falk) did not know enough about origin-of-life theory to respond in a serious way to Meyer’s arguments. (Of course Ayala’s own field was nowhere near origin of life, and he didn’t engage any of Meyer’s specific arguments, and there is some doubt over whether he ever read Meyer’s book, but that did not matter to Falk; the important thing was that Ayala was a “big name” in biology, and Falk could stand behind him, the way an unarmed civilian might stand behind Captain America, protected by his shield.) Falk also brought in Francis Beckwith at one point, to make theological criticisms of ID. Such tactics are consistent with Falk believing that his position (ID is bad science and bad theology) was right, but knowing that his ability to defend that position was lacking.

I suspect that the OEC people sincerely believe that they are right (that the earth and universe are old, that God created basic “kinds”, and that God specially created man) but are not prepared to rigorously define their terms (kinds, species, etc.) because they aren’t ready to defend their position based on such firm definitions. And there really isn’t any excuse for this procrastination. It’s not as if OEC was just invented yesterday, and they need time to think things out. OEC has been around for a hundred years or more; refusal of OECs to engage publicly, signing their individual names on the subject of what constitutes a created “kind” and how much “microevolution” could have occurred, is a sign of serious intellectual weakness in their position. Even if they don’t agree among themselves, nothing stops them from answering challenges as individuals. It’s to the discredit of the whole group, from Ross on down, that they won’t respond to challenges.

YECs, on the other hand, are not afraid to jump in and defend their statements. Taken as a position, I find YEC to be inferior to OEC, but in terms of sociological/political behavior, the YECs are in a much stronger position than the OECs. When most people think of “creationism” they think of YEC, and the reason for this is that YEC is a much clearer and more focused position and that YECs are not wafflers or evaders, but have the courage of their convictions.

(Caveat: Not all OECs are affiliated with Ross’s group, and there may be OECs who are willing to be very specific about created kinds and how much “microevolution” they allow. But we here have been talking about Ross’s group, which is the most prominent group and the public face of OEC in current origins debates. So if it turns out that some OECs are not guilty of the behavior I’m here criticizing, I apologize to those OECs, but Ross’s groups deserves to be on the hot seat here.)

[John_Harshman]

This is your second attempt to make the thread all about BioLogos, when you were asked politely not to do it the first time. Is it permissible to be less polite the second time?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@John_Harshman

This is your second attempt to make the thread all about BioLogos

Rubbish. Only two out of six paragraphs in my post were about BioLogos, and I made it clear that I was using BioLogos as an example in which the distinction between the two motives mentioned by Puck could be seen. If you don’t like the example I chose, maybe you could provide a better one.

You don’t complain when Faizal constantly throws remarks about Discovery into conversations that weren’t originally about Discovery. Why the double standard?

[John_Harshman]

@Eddie

Rubbish. Only two out of six paragraphs in my post were about BioLogos,

Two more than appropriate.

@Eddie

Why the double standard?

1. BioLogos is a particularly sensitive subject, more likely to derail a thread.
2. Didn’t notice.

[Faizal_Ali]

@John_Harshman

Oddly enough, @swamidass never answered that question. Why will a response from RTB not be forthcoming “any time soon”? And what does “soon” mean here?

IMHO it can be reasonably assumed that if @swamidass knew the answers to those questions and was at liberty to share them, he would have.

[John_Harshman]

@Faizal_Ali

IMHO it can be reasonably assumed that if @swamidass knew the answers to those questions and was at liberty to share them, he would have.

I’m not sure that’s a reasonable assumption. At the very least, he could have said so rather than ignoring the questions.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@John_Harshman

Two more than appropriate.

Who made you the arbiter of what is “appropriate”?

@John_Harshman

BioLogos is a particularly sensitive subject, more likely to derail a thread.

Why should it be? The person I was addressing has no more use for BioLogos than I do, nor do most of the people commenting in this particular discussion. Besides, my example was from the BioLogos of a long time ago, so people can imagine that BioLogos has improved since then, if they wish. And for comparison, note that accusations that Discovery is planning a theocracy is also a “particularly sensitive subject” for a number of people here, yet several posters here constantly bring up this charge against Discovery whenever they feel like it, whether it has anything to do with a discussion or not, and I never hear anyone here complaining about that. Apparently some kinds of “derailing” are considered badges of honor around here, and others “inappropriate”.

[John_Harshman]

@Eddie

Who made you the arbiter of what is “appropriate”?

My inherent authority as judge of all, my status as thread starter, and the fact that anyone can express an opinion on such things.

@Eddie

Why should it be?

Because it has the tendency to derail threads, based on prior experience. And now you’re derailing the thread by talking about whether this or that derails threads. Let’s agree to stop.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@John_Harshman

Let’s agree to stop.

Of course I’ll agree to stop. I thought I had stopped when I finished responding to Puck. Then you made your complaint. I’ll be only too glad to stop again. Peace.

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

“Is there a range of opinion within OEC regarding how far microevolution extends? For example, Fazale Rana argued in a talk on the RTB site that evolutionary change at the genus and species levels does in fact happen. He gives the example of the “horse series.” That would suggest that the created “kind” roughly corresponds to animal “families”. However, I’m told that Dr. Ross thinks the ceiling is at the genus level. Are you aware of a range within OEC? Can you direct me to examples of OEC people who think the created “kinds” could have been families, or even orders, or even classes? Or OEC articles which deal specifically with such an “edge of evolution” (to borrow Behe’s phrase)?”

If they are using Linnaean taxonomic levels of organization then they are going to hit quite a few bumps along the way. There are no objective, quantitative, or empirical definitions of where those dividing lines lay. We could decide to put humans and the other ape species in the same genus if we so desired, and there is no reason why we couldn’t. As another example, there are thousands of species in the genus Drosophila. If they are going to make any headway they are going to need quantitative data, not arbitrary divisions.

Todd Wood is a YEC, but it seems as if he understands this problem. From what I can tell, he is trying to use quantitative methods (e.g. multivariate analysis) to find a dividing line between humans and fossil hominids.

@Eddie

If this is going to be the attitude of the Ross group, I would venture the prediction that 10 years from now, that group will no longer exist.

OEC may be an untenable halfway house between YEC and ID. With YEC we get one burst of creation events, and ID proposes a long history of subtle changes. OEC proposes a long history of continuous supernatural creative events, at least from what I understand. Once you give up on a young Earth, it may not be as attractive to hold on to overtly supernatural events.

[Faizal_Ali]

@T_aquaticus

OEC may be an untenable halfway house between YEC and ID. With YEC we get one burst of creation events, and ID proposes a long history of subtle changes.

Is that true? I am not aware of any source that explicitly describes the ID model with any specificity. As far as I have been able to determine, OEC, YEC and any other variation of creationism can fit under the ID banner.

[Tim]

@T_aquaticus

With YEC we get one burst of creation events, and ID proposes a long history of subtle changes. OEC proposes a long history of continuous supernatural creative events, at least from what I understand.

Are the “subtle changes” that ID proposes any less supernatural than OEC’s? If they aren’t, at least implicitly, supernatural, then why does ID rail against Methodological Naturalism so much?

[Faizal_Ali]

@Tim

If they aren’t, at least implicitly, supernatural, then why does ID rail against Methodological Naturalism so much?

Recall that Stephen Meyer, allegedly a philosopher of science, believes that Methodological Naturalism entails that we are not permitted to say the Rosetta Stone was carved by human beings. So maybe they just don’t know what MN is?

Otherwise, I think this is just part of their ruse to convince followers that the scientific establishment has unfairly stacked the deck against ID by assuming philosophical positions that rule out ID by fiat. They could say methodological naturalism or logical positivism or Marxism or any other ism they wish. The propaganda works just as well regardless of whether they use the label correctly.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Faizal_Ali

Otherwise, I think this is just part of their ruse to convince followers that the scientific establishment has unfairly stacked the deck against ID by assuming philosophical positions that rule out ID by fiat.

Let’s not forget that it’s used as an excuse to avoid DOING science.

[Tim]

In his 1995 book Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education , Johnson labelled his position theistic realism which, in contrast to methodological naturalism, assumed “that the universe and all its creatures were brought into existence for a purpose by God. Theistic realists expect this ‘fact’ of creation to have empirical, observable consequences that are different from the consequences one would observe if the universe were the product of non rational causes”. While “God always has the option of working through regular secondary mechanisms” which were often to be seen, “many important questions—including the origin of genetic information and human consciousness—may not be explicable in terms of unintelligent causes”.

– Theistic science

[Faizal_Ali]

Interesting quote. However, based on that, I don’t see how the usual scientific method would be inapplicable or need to be modified to uncover evidence of this god’s interventions. It’s not actually evident from the quote that he appreciates the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. Rather, it seems to me an example of just what I was discussing: An attempt to misattribute the rejection of ID to prior philosophical commitments rather than to the simple fact that there is no good evidence to support ID.

[Tim]

Maybe, but it also tends to support my suspicion “that [what] ID proposes [isn’t] any less supernatural than OEC’s [claims]”.

[Faizal_Ali]

Oh, absolutely. They will sometimes pay lip service to “The Designer could be an alien.” But no one takes that seriously, including themselves.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Faizal_Ali

They will sometimes pay lip service to “The Designer could be an alien.” But no one takes that seriously, including themselves.

Not only that, but when they succeeded in baiting Dawkins into acknowledging the hypothetical possibility of an alien intelligence, they spent the next couple of years mocking him for it. So I think we can safely say that they regard aliens as off the table. It’s another one of those arguments-raised-only-to-counter which the proponent doesn’t believe himself.

[T_aquaticus]

@Tim

Are the “subtle changes” that ID proposes any less supernatural than OEC’s?

I was thinking of the contrast between ex nihilo creation and interference in natural processes. The difference between magically poofing a rabbit into being and God guiding the pin pong balls in a lottery so that a certain person wins.