Dr. Joshua Swamidass, a theistic evolutionist, joined us recently at TSZ. I think the following comment of his will lead to some interesting and contentious discussion and is worthy of its own thread:
Third, if we drop “Darwinian” to just refer to the current modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, you are right that the scientific account does not find any evidence of direction or planning. I agree with you here and do not dispute this.
So the question becomes, really, is it possible that God could have created a process (like evolution) with a purposeful intent that science could not detect? I think the answer here is obvious. Of course He could. In fact, I would say, unless He wanted us to discern His purpose, we could not.
In my view, then, evolution has a purpose in creating us. Science itself cannot uncover its purpose. I find that out by other means.
Two points:
1.) science assumes teleology, so there’s no need to fight to have science acknowledge teleology.
2.) scientists already acknowledge teleology, they just prefer to call it teleonomy.
If that is true then science is fundamentally flawed as a source of knowledge that is vital in our everyday experience .
I wonder if the non-theists here would concede that science is so enfeebled?
peace
swamidass,
In EVERY one of these possible ways in which God directs science then, we have to reject “random” mutations right?
So how can we teach evolution in schools, saying that evolution happens by “random” mutation, and at the same time have some scientists who say, “well, look it doesn’t have to ACTUALLY be random mutations.., but that’s just what we are calling them.” And how can a student who is a serious thinker, and who questions the ability of “random” mutations to create such incredibly intricate and sophisticated systems, say its just fine scientifically to gloss over whether its really random or not. But continue on with the science as if it is?
That is not even close to science in my view.
This is Ok for our schools to teach such contradictory nonsense?
amen
peace
I am having a very hard time detecting how Swamidass’s position is any different from ID?
Likewise, by the description of Ken Miller Miller’s position, I think we can also sign him up to the ID position. It seems there are more people who believe in ID then there are even people who KNOW they believe in ID.
It’s doesn’t have to actually be random we just have to call it random to avoid upsetting the atheists among us. That is because the most important thing in science is not making those folks uncomfortable 😉
peace
It’s not any different IMO. He just doesn’t want to be associated with the Hoi polloi for some reason
peace
If it’s any consolation, I think the majority of my own unpleasantness here has been with my “brother atheists.” They suck too.
Please inform the Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent. They are quite convinced that I am their mortal enemy (okay that is a bit of an exaggeration).
The difference is that they are a priori convinced this is detectable by scientific means. Many (though not all) are devoted to changing how science is taught. And some (who knows what percentage), see ID as a backdoor way of getting young earth creationism into schools. I want nothing to do with any of this.
I guess, ID is also very confident in their anti-evolution arguments. As a trained scientist, I have yet to find a solid ID argument in biological evolution. In my opinion, (if a Christian computational biologist is to be trusted) all their math is obviously wrong.
So yeah, I can see why I am not liked by the ID movement. They seem to be very aware of the danger that people like me pose to their scientific case and preferred narrative.
So you are saying-
1.There is teleology.
2. We can’t detect this teleology (maybe we can maybe we can’t).
3. We should teach evolution as if there is no teleology.
Is that right?
Well, yeah. They’re worse. 😉
swamidass,
Isn’t it possible that some people just think that its a strange philosophical position for one to have, that says, I believe in teleology in nature, I don’t believe in teaching there is teleology in nature? Instead I prefer to tell students that evolution has no teleology?
Perhaps the creationists just aren’t as dumb as you think.
I have never called creationists dumb. They are often very educated, informed, and bright. I have a great respect from several of the honest creationists I know, like Todd Woods and Kurt Wise, and even some members of my family. I have no animosity to creationists. I just disagree.
This, of course, is just silly. That is not even an approximate paraphrase of what I am saying. I deal with students all the time. I am professor, and speak nationally on this exact topic. None of them seem to be confused about where I stand. It is honestly easy to follow.
Perhaps you disagree. Fine. Disagree. But pretending that my position is incomprehensible just makes you look bad. If so many other people understand what I am saying, why is this so hard for you?
KN:
fifth:
I agree with (the gist of) fifth’s comment here, and it’s one of the reasons I think that methodological naturalism is a silly and unnecessary restriction on science.
Science deals with testable claims. Whether the claims involve the supernatural is irrelevant, as long as they are testable.
If you flip Haldane’s joke on its head and assert that God’s primary motivation is a hatred of beetle species, then I can present the preponderance of beetle species as scientific evidence against your claim. The fact that it involves God does not put it outside the domain of science.
Not exactly.
1. There is teleology.
2. Science cannot detect this teleology in evolution.
3. So science class should not teach teleology in evolution.
Of course, outside science class, teach students how there is purpose in evolution, if you so desire. This is exactly what Francis Collins does through BioLogos. My experience has been that scientists appreciate BioLogos for their efforts, whether the agree or not, because it helps further science education for all society. That, I think, is a common good.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument
peace
I would really like you to elaborate on this. Why is science so enfeebled in your opinion?
If science can detect intent in animals why can’t it detect intent in God?
peace
That is just funny. I didn’t even claim they were my “friends,” and I’m 100% certain that many of you are going to consider me a traitor. I’m not trying to win your trust (that is just about impossible). I’m just telling you the truth, as I see it. Do what you will from there.
swamidass,
Its not an appropriate paraphrasing of what you believe to say that you believe in teleology and that you don’t believe people should be taught it exists?? Because that is what I said I thought your position was, and now you are telling me that is not an appropriate paraphrasing.
The only reason this could be called an inappropriate paraphrasing is because it is an EXACT phrasing of your position, no?
Why not spend a little less time patronizing folks who you are attacking here and a little more elaborating on your own views.
I don’t consider you a traitor you are just very wrong in your science and your theology. Some of my best friends are “honest” theistic evolutionists 😉
peace
That’s good, because I never said it was incomprehensible. I may have inferred that it was illogical however.
The stuff about evolution being “undirected” is often confused, even by popularizers of evolutionary theory.
The important claim is just this: there is no empirically detectable physical mechanism that first sees what features would be adaptive in an environment and then causes the mutations that would generate those features.
But that is fully consistent with thinking that God (or something like God) does bring those features about. It’s just that, however God does so, it’s not by a process that can be measured in a laboratory.
phoodoo, to swamidass:
Jesus, phoodoo.
He stated it very clearly:
Calm down and read what he writes.
Just to warn everyone, I’m off to work in a moment. So don’t take my imminent silence personally.
Well thanks for not thinking of me as a traitor. I appreciate that.
So now, before you instruct me in the errors of my scientific and theological ways, can you please show me your qualifications. Who are you? What is your training and accomplishments in either theology or science?
As for me, I do not use a pseudonym online so people can see straight away that I am legitimate (http://swami.wustl.edu/) and I bear professional responsibility for everything I say in public about science, and I work closely with theologians on the theology.
After you let us know your standing, go ahead, tell me where my science is wrong. =)
Is this because intent is not empirically detectable? even in principle?
I’ve asked this several times and several ways to different individuals and I have yet to receive an answer. Why is that?
peace
Exactly.
Go back and read the thread. KH gave some excellent reasons that I expanded on. I do not think that divine purpose is detectable by science as we know it.
You are a science teacher yes? You say there is teleology in nature yes? You want to tell science students there is NO teleology in nature yes?
Or do you want to tell the students, there is teleology, but never mind, pretend there isn’t because we can’t find it actually?
Please don’t accuse me of bastardizing your position, if you have not expressed more clearly what it is. Everyone here can read what you have written so far, and this seems to be exactly what you are saying.
I will try one more time, and then go to work.
1. There is teleology in nature.
2. Science does not detect in nature.
3. So science class should not teach teleology.
4. Outside science, (perhaps in philosophy or in church) one can teach there is teleology in nature, that science does not detect.
So I think science class should be left alone, and so should evolutionary theory. Even if it is correct, it is not complete, but who cares. I’ll tell people outside of science class that I find evidence for teleology outside of science. That is my position.
1) Are you saying that I should just accept your scientific opinions unless I first prove that I went to a better school than you did?
2) What exactly is your “standing” to say that those who believe that God makes his existence known in biology have their theology wrong?
peace
swamidass, to fifth:
swamidass,
The argument from credentials won’t get you very far here.
Credentialed people can produce poor arguments, and non-credentialed people can produce good ones. The opposite is also true, of course.
Fifth makes a lot of bogus claims. It’s best just to point out where he screws up, rather than interrogating him about his credentials.
I think we have a much better sense of the relevant similarities and dissimilarities between a finite non-rational mind and a finite rational mind than we do between a finite rational mind and an infinite rational mind.
For one thing, in the case of the finite non-rational mind and the finite rational mind we can tell a really good story of what being minded is for: mindedness is for coordinating sensory receptivity and purposive responsiveness so that actions are generally conducive to successful coping with a world that is sometimes reliable and sometimes surprising. Put it otherwise, mindedness makes sense in terms of what animals need and want.
A finite rational animal is one give reasons for what it does and why it does what it does. In my account, the ability to play the game of giving and asking for reasons amounts to being able to use non-coercive social mechanisms for generating collective action aimed at successful cooperation. Finite rational animals deliberate about what to do, and we learn how to do so by deliberating with others, as a consequence of which we also learn how to deliberate ‘privately’ (as when we make a list of pros and cons for our decisions).
But an infinite rational mind is nothing at all like that.
Being omnipotent, it does not depend on anything outside of itself — it is ontologically self-sufficient in a way that no organism (or indeed, no contingent thing) could possibly be. Being omniscient, it has no need to anticipate or predict what will happen, does not rely on anticipations to guide its coping with the world, and has no need to adjust its behavior in response to the sometimes expected and sometimes surprising opportunities and obstacles that come its way. Nor does it need to coordinate its actions with those of other beings in order for its own needs to be satisfied in collective action.
So I think we have pretty good reasons for thinking that our understanding of what makes finite non-rational minds similar to and different from finite rational minds is really quite different from our understanding of what makes finite rational minds similar to and different from the infinite rational mind (assuming that there’s only one of them).
KN said that God can’t be detected because his existence is consistent with any possible observation.
Is that your position?
IOW Do you believe that the Christian God’s existence is consistent with a universe in which righteousness and truth do not exist for example?
peace
Given that we can’t even measure cumulative selection in silico it comes as no surprise that we cant’ measure it in the lab. Or in the wild.
You don’t have accept anything I say. Believe whatever you want. But you said my science is wrong.
At this point, you are an anonymous person on the internet. I’m just curious how your are going to establish sufficient credibility to inform a science professor, who runs an active research group publishing several scientific papers each year, that he is entirely wrong about science. I just want to know why I should trust your understanding of science at all. For all I know, you are a Nobel Laureate incognito, but how can we trust your science opinions till we know who you are and what you have done in science?
And of course, that is a good point too. Except he has not even told me where my science is wrong.
Maybe we should just drop this whole line. I don’t see this ending well.
So the reason why God can’t detect intent in God is because science assumes that God thinks differently than we do but that rats think the same way we do?
Why does science assume that?
peace
swamidass,
So you were taught that there was no teleology in nature. And you believe that is not true.
And you want schools to continue to teach what you believe is not true (simply because it is your believe that we will never find out how this teleology is applied In fact, you said you don’t even care how it is applied.)
Forgive me if I tell you I don’t agree at all with your position, if for nothing else that there are kids smart enough to see the foolishness in this.
About this part. I am not claiming this on my theological authority (I have none) but my scientific knowledge. The other theological points I am making are not novel at all, and I am just echoing theologians there. Perhaps I am wrong. I’m not the judge of anything here. I’m just telling you how I see it.
I do think I react somewhat strongly when people blanketly challenge my scientific credibility. So sorry if that was an overreaction.
And that is EXACTLY why creationists have been wrong for decades, and are still wrong.
Is it ok to teach teleonomy in science classes?
If there is teleology in nature, and YOU have no idea how this teleology is applied, how in the heck can you say it is wrong? All you can say is there is teleology, and you haven’t a clue about it after that.
Mung,
I think there needs to be a new standard for biology teachers. All of them have to agree to be liars, before they can teach science.
But at the end of class, they are allowed to slip a little note to all of the students that says, “Pssst, listen if you want to know the truth, go down the hall to Mrs. Appleby’s Thought and Reason class. She has a few secrets to tell you. Don’t tell anyone I sent you!”
The interventionist, tinkering God of Kenneth Miller. I love it!
It’s bad science and bad theology but it’s from a theistic evolutionist so it’s ok.
swamidass,
Fifth substitutes bravado for substance. He’s all hat and no cattle.
You can see it in this thread, when he says…
…but then turns tail and runs when asked to support that claim.
phoodoo, in a science class, “Teleology did it” is almost as bad as “God did it.” What’s wrong with “Sorry, we don’t fully understand how that works yet.”? Do you hate it because it’s humble?
walto,
Hey, I am all for teaching that evolution is teleological, but the details are unknown. But you of course would never agree to that.
KN,
“Evolution is undirected” is the claim that there is no such mechanism, physical or otherwise. If there were such a mechanism, then to the extent it was active, mutations would not appear to be random with respect to fitness.
This suggests some questions for Christian TEs like swamidass:
1) If the goal of evolution was to create humans, then why did God choose such a roundabout way of achieving it, using mutations that give every appearance of being random with respect to increased fitness?
2) If God is forthright about his purposes in the Bible, then why does he go to such apparent lengths to hide them in nature itself?
3) Why not draw the more forthright conclusion — that the Bible is wrong, and what nature is telling us is correct?
4) How do you reconcile God’s supposedly benevolent nature with the sheer amount of suffering engendered by evolution over the eons? If God had the power to intervene to prevent most or all of that suffering, why didn’t he?
Mung,
Of course. Do you understand the difference between claiming that evolution is teleological vs teleonomic?
swamidass,
Do you think Science can infer purpose in nature through observation and experimentation?
I think I understand the difference. Teleonomy is teleology for atheists. Is that right?
Or is it, it just LOOKS teleological. You are being fooled.