Would You Like Fries With That Theory? Part Three
"The BioLogos Forum" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by Karl Giberson. Karl Giberson directs the new science & religion writing program at Gordon College in Boston. He has published more than 100 articles, reviews and essays for Web sites and journals including Salon.com, Books & Culture, and the Huffington Post. He has written seven books, including Saving Darwin, The Language of Science & Faith, and The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age.
We often hear about the virtue of “teaching the controversy” when it comes to origins. The strategy is to lay out various options to students--options on which “experts” disagree--and let them make up their minds. This proposal appeals to America’s sense of fair play. America, from the days of its founding to its dynamic entrepreneurial culture of today has always celebrated the ability to break free of traditional ideas and boldly go where nobody has gone before.
The anti-Darwinians would have us view evolution the same way the founding fathers viewed the yoke of British colonialism. Just as the heavy hand of Britain had to be removed, so the yoke of Darwin must be cast aside as well, if we are to be truly liberated to find the truth. And what better way to find the truth than to have the options laid out in front of us, like the entrees on a menu waiting to be selected, or the candidates on a ballot waiting to be elected to office?
Despite the generous tone of such a proposal, it is a recipe for the production of widespread scientific illiteracy. Sending the message that we can “choose” our preferred science from a roster of options undermines the entire concept of science for it makes science seem like politics. Science is nothing like politics. Politics, at its best, is all about trying to create a society where people will be happiest. And the criteria for that change from time to time. Once upon a time women could not vote and that seemed OK. Now it is not OK. Once upon a time, education was not universally available and now it is. Politics is all about figuring out how things should be, based on how we would like them to be.
Science is the opposite of this. Science is about finding out how the world is whether we like it or not. And the lesson of history is that science is often not what we want it to be. Galileo’s arguments for the moving earth were not greeted with a chorus of “Amens” by his colleagues in Rome. John Donne expressed the concern of that generation when he wrote that this “new philosophy casts all in doubt.” Galileo’s ideas became the consensus slowly because they were true, not because they made people happy, or got selected by the majority from a roster of options.
The same thing is true of the Big Bang theory. Countless scientists went on record opposing the strange idea that our universe emerged in some kind of transcendent explosion beyond the reach of science. The Steady State Theory was developed by some leading cosmologists specifically to oppose the Big Bang because many scientists did not like it and wanted it to be false. But facts are facts and gradually a consensus emerged that the Big Bang was true.
In a more interesting development, we have watched “scientific racism” gradually be undermined by advances in genetics. It was once believed that certain races, like Australian aborigines, Africans, or Native Americans were demonstrably inferior. The textbook from which John Scopes supposedly taught evolution made this claim explicitly. But scientific advances in our understanding of human origins destroyed the foundations of these racist notions. All scientists though, did not welcome these advances. Racism runs deep and it was hard for some people to accept that their racism was based on an irrational and ultimately immoral prejudice and not on science.
But, once again, a consensus emerged that “race” does not have a biological basis. Many scientists are justifiably proud that science has dealt such a blow to humanity’s greatest social plague. This happened, though, through the achievement of consensus, as opposing viewpoints were undermined and the reluctant holdouts gradually came on board.
The same is true for evolution. Darwin’s ideas were not met with universal and unbridled enthusiasm. In fact, his key idea of natural selection was ignored for decades because most biologists thought it was too feeble to do the work Darwin assigned to it in The Origin of Species. The consensus about evolution that exists among biologists today took about a century to achieve. Thousands and thousands of reluctant, often brilliant, frequently cranky, scientists had to “come around” to Darwin’s view.
This is the meaning of “consensus” in science. Thomas Cudworth, on the Uncommon Descent blog, describes the embrace of consensus as “prostration before a self-selecting clique of experts.” This he says, “is repugnant to good science, to good philosophy, to the ideal of the university, and to the ideal of an open, free and democratic society.”
This does not make sense to me. Tens of thousands of biologists at thousands of universities spread around the planet are hardly a “self-selecting clique of experts.” And what does “self-selecting” even mean in this context? I would love to “select” myself to a tenured position at Harvard but I am unaware that such an option is available to me. The claim that the standard methods of science are “repugnant” to a “democratic society” is, alas, completely true. If only we could “vote” on what we wanted to be true, rather than have it imposed on us by the way things are.
Science is anything but democratic. Mother Nature casts the only vote and it is the job of science to determine how she voted. She votes only once and never changes her mind.
The scientific community is filled with creative, obstinate, and highly independent personalities. Anyone who attends a scientific meeting can see this clearly. Scientists dress strangely, have irregular hair, and are often socially odd. They can be abrasive and obnoxious. They despise convention and disrespect tradition. If there is any group that would be unwilling to bow before a “self-selecting clique of experts”, it is scientists.
A scientific consensus represents a hard-won victory over every imaginable sort of opposition. We should not set aside such consensus just because a tiny group of articulate outsiders offer us some ideas that we might like better. The ID movement has people with Ph.D.s to be sure. And a few of them have conventional scientific posts. But their pleas that we set aside scientific consensus must be ignored.
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
July 28th 2010
Argon:
Often TE people have argued that design arguments are not valid in the absence of independent knowledge of the designer. They use this argument in order to neutralize arguments based on arrowheads, etc., and keep design arguments out of biology. That principle, if adopted, would rule out even “may be scientifically detectable”, since such TEs believe that independent knowledge of the designer is available only from revelation..
However, I grant you that other TEs have accepted the fine-tuning argument, e.g., Collins. But in doing so, while taking the above position regarding biology, they make an artificial division, since the logic of the inference is the same in biology as in physics. [As Denton’s argument shows. He consciously subsumes biology under a larger vision of cosmic fine-tuning, but most TE/EC people won’t go there. (Lamoureux is one of the few open admirers of Denton among TE/EC people.)]
Anyway, very few TE/EC people have said, clearly, “design in living systems may be scientifically detectable”. Sometimes, after hours of argument, one can draw such an admission from them, grudgingly and without enthusiasm. My overall characterization is accurate.
Reply to this commentJuly 28th 2010
Rich
Have you discussed “design in living systems may be scientifically detectable” in detail elsewhere here? Could you post a link to the discussion if you have. I’d like to weigh in on the issue. Thanks.
Reply to this commentJuly 28th 2010
Argon:
I haven’t conceded that a process involving apparently random mutations can produce human beings, unless it’s admitted either that the apparently random mutations are in fact directly caused by God, or that there are some telic processes involved, i.e., some kind of tendencies built into living systems to evolve in certain directions. Neither possibility is compatible with traditional neo-Darwinism.
Regarding Behe, he doesn’t say much on the theological question (it is his opponents, e.g., MIller and Ayala, who keep attacking him for bad theology, especially regarding the existence of evil). But his conception of how macroevolution might have happened is in tune with my above paragraph. In the past he’s allowed the possibility of direct control of mutations (without ever insisting on it), and he’s also allowed the possibility of Dentonesque telic but wholly natural developments (without dogmatizing about it). He’s in fact a small-te theistic evolutionist, and I see no theological problem with that. It’s the unnecessary insistence on certain stipulations which causes Behe to refuse the TE label. And those stipulations all come from neo-Darwinism and/or certain theological commitments.
Reply to this commentJuly 28th 2010
DNA:
I don’t think I’ve discussed it elsewhere on Biologos.
Reply to this commentJuly 28th 2010
Argon:
I don’t assert any variation in radioactive decay rates, the speed of light, etc. Those are YEC arguments, and it should be obvious to all here that I am not a YEC.
My argument against neo-Darwinian formation of complex new organs and systems is not based on a denial of any established laws of nature. It’s based entirely on my perception that the capability of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to do the job has nowhere near been demonstrated. In other words, it’s based on what I see as empirical and theoretical deficiencies in the theory, not on miracles, attacks on naturalism, etc.
I do grant the possibility of direct divine involvement in creation (as did all Christians prior to the Enlightenment), but that possibility doesn’t guide my skepticism of neo-Darwinism. If I demanded direct divine involvement, I would automatically reject Denton, and I don’t. My position is that God may or may not have played a hands-on role. Darwin’s whole point was that he had no hands-on role, and neo-Darwinism has been faithful to Darwin’s intentions. I keep open possibilities that others have closed down upon.
Reply to this commentJuly 28th 2010
Gregory, penman:
I have no problem at all with the term “theistic evolution”, as long as its meaning is restricted to the bare minimum implied by the terms. I.e., belief in God, combined with belief in evolution as the creative process employed by God. If the definition is kept that broad, and that open, then Behe and a number of less well-known ID supporters could in good conscience call themselves theistic evolutionists. But in practice, the majority of TEs affirm one or more of a set of auxiliary propositions which keep ID people out—indeed, in some cases seem deliberately designed to keep ID people out. Thus, many TEs insist that god would not directly create evil; others insist that God would not make design detectable, to leave room for faith; others insist that design detection is invalid in the absence of independent knowledge of the designer; others insist (wrongly) that design requires “intervention”, and then denounce an intervening God (outside of a few Biblical miracles, that is) as an un-Christian God, a mere “tinkerer”, etc. These stipulations, in no way required by the mere phrase “theistic evolution”, erect a Berlin Wall between the ID and TE camps. Mr. Biologos, tear down that wall.
Reply to this commentJuly 29th 2010
Rich,
Thanks for this comment. I still don’t like calling myself a TE, for the reasons set out in Gordon Glover’s book. He says that by “theistic evolution” logic, you could stick “theistic” in front of anything - theistic meteorology is his example, but you could have theistic geology, theistic electromagnetism, & goodness knows what else. It ends up being little or nothing more than “Here is this scientific fact, theory, or law, & by the way, I also believe in God.”
Also, I really don’t like being declassified as a creationist. I believe in God the Creator, as the Bible & the Creeds teach. The argument isn’t about creation, but about God’s methods of creating.
I can’t answer the other points, since they don’t necessarily form part of my own understanding of Evolutionary Creationism. I accept common descent, & I think natural selection is an important “mechanism” for producing biodiversity. What others may accept as belonging to their understanding of how God worked via evolution, I don’t think it can be dogmatized as essential to a TE / EC outlook.
What’s your own view on common descent & natural selection? (No doubt you’ve said it somewhere….)
Reply to this commentJuly 29th 2010
Thanks for sharing that, penman. I don´t call myself a TE either.
The argument you cite is of course not original to G. Glover. It still, however, makes much sense given that one doesn´t want to be associated with pejorative ideologies that one doesn´t agree with, just for the sake of natural-physical science.
A similar story has happened with ´evolutionary´ being placed in front of things. E.g. evolutionary economics, evolutionary psychology, evolutionary politics. This should be considered when looking at the concept duo ´evolutionary creation.´ I´m quite sure there´s a better way of expressing what this so-called ´position´ wants to express *without* needlessly taking the label ´evolutionary´ alongside ´creation´ too.
You say it well straightfowardly, penman:
“I really don’t like being declassified as a creationist.”
This is probably part of the reason ASA issued the statement: “We believe in creation!”
One issue to look at is the plural form of ´common descent´. Once one speaks of ´common descents´ they indicate a need to study bifurcations in the so-called ´tree of life.´ In the human realm, one could have more than one ´common descent´ & thus share in two otherwise separate ´traditions´.
Reply to this commentJuly 29th 2010
penman:
I’m indifferent to whether people use TE or EC. The difference is only rhetorical. The substance of both is that God created through an evolutionary process. And I’ve said I have no theological objection to such a position. I see nothing in the Bible (I don’t read Genesis as a news report) and nothing in the tradition of Christian theology that would forbid God from using an evolutionary process.
I’m not holding you responsible for the views of all TEs. I’m merely saying that I’ve read precious few TEs (other than Ted Davis) who don’t saddle TE with one or more of the theological demands I listed, or some other theological demand; and almost always the demands are phrased so as to say or imply that ID entails bad or unorthodox theology. It is the TE desire to lecture ID people on theology, as much as any scientific disagreement, that separates ID from TE. And as I’ve said, biologists or physicists who sporadically read bits of modern theology shouldn’t be posing as authorities on Christian doctrine.
Natural selection is real but can create nothing; it can only veto or confirm. And common descent doesn’t in itself provide a causal account of evolution. I’m looking for the latter.
Reply to this commentJuly 29th 2010
Don´t forget, Rich, that ID people under-represent themselves in theology (and human-social sciences) is a LARGE part of the problem.
Timaeus noted this on the Uncommon Descent thread a few weeks back, which Darrel Falk contributed to, given that the topic was K. Applegate´s thread. The desire to ´look scientific´ simply *cannot be over-stated* when it comes to the IDM.
TE people talk a lot more about theology than do ID people. Thus, ID people wouldn´t need to be ´lectured to´ if they could instead offer their own side of the dialogue.
I asked Demsbki *why not more ID theology* in front of a largely pro-ID audience. His answer was disappointing, as usual.
You´ll find several persons who are not just ´sporadic readers´ of ´bits of modern theology´ but who are in fact knowledgeable here at BioLogos if you want to bring along some fellow IDists to discuss theology. I doubt you´ll find many takers. They´re “trying hard to be scientific,” and not *just* philosophical or theological, as you know.
Reply to this commentJuly 30th 2010
Gregory:
I’m not concerned with how much or how little ID or TE people talk about theology. That’s their business. What I’m concerned with is what both sides say when they *do* talk about theology. And I’ve heard people from *both* sides talking rot. But I notice, on the TE side, that often there’s an “attack dog” mentality, whereby TEs will argue in this way: “... thus, Behe’s argument is bad science. And it’s also bad theology, because ... ” There then follows (typically from a cell biologist or physicist or computer-builder) a string of false, dubious, self-contradictory or weakly supported theological statements, showing little or no knowledge of primary texts, languages, or good secondary sources. Yet the statement is issued in tones of certainty that would be appropriate only for someone on the level of Calvin or Augustine. I find this an extremely irritating and pretentious aspect of much TE discourse.
Reply to this commentJuly 30th 2010
Rich:
<
>
Perhaps so. Let’s grant it. I still can’t help feeling that TE has grave rhetorical disadvantages.
Thus: in the Christian world, you have three main identity markers for views on the issues we discuss here. Put them like this:
Young Earth Creationist
Old Earth Creationist
Theistic Evolutionist
That means that rhetorically, I’ve been booted out of the creationist camp. Why am I the only one not allowed to identify myself as a creationist? I believe in God the Creator as much as my YEC & OEC brethren. I feel rhetorically disadvantaged! It’s awful how in churches today someone can solemnly be accused of “not believing in creation”.
Gregory - don’t keep me in the dark - if there’s a better term than Evolutionary Creationist, give it to me QUICK!
Reply to this commentJuly 30th 2010
penman @24028
“if there’s a better term than Evolutionary Creationist”
I accept that God created all that is, and so I describe myself as a creationist who accepts an old earth and common descent with modification. Since that is a long description I might use the “ec” label but in lower case. I do that because I want to differentiate my self from TE/EC leadership that appears to discount many/most of Christ’s miracles. The only one that all of them seem to accept is the resurrection.
Reply to this commentDave W
July 30th 2010
penman
As I recall you live in UK. Do you know what Dennis Allexander accepts wrt miracles.
Reply to this commentDave W
July 30th 2010
gingoro:
<
>
Well, in his book “Creation or Evolution” he speaks of miracles recorded in the Bible as though they actually happened. E.g.-
“When Jesus intervenes to turn water into wine, or calm a rough sea, or raise Lazarus from the dead, these miraculous signs stand out as such because they are so different from God’s normal way of working in creation” (p.38).
I’ve looked up all the index references to miracles in the book, & I can’t find anywhere that he denies them or explains them away. On p.41 he labels as “theological liberals” those who “deny miracles in the name of science” (& pretty clearly indicates that he’s not one of them).
<>
That’s a bit depressing. No virgin conception? No feeding of the 5000? No raising of Lazarus? I can’t myself see why accepting some evolutionary account of life would lead to that scepticism. Is there anywhere on BioLogos where such views are articulated?
Reply to this commentJuly 30th 2010
penman:
In answer to your question to gingoro, bear in mind that gingoro has been in dialogue with TEs for a number of years, before Biologos even existed. Only a small fraction of the world’s TEs post columns on Biologos. There are many prominent TEs who have expressed (usually in a guarded and circuitous manner) doubts about a good number of Biblical miracles. There is a special tendency among some to minimize or explain away OT miracles. There is also a tendency among some to avoid direct answers to questions. E.g.: “Did Jesus walk on the water?” Answer: “It doesn’t say “water”, it says “sea”. In the Old Testament, symbolism regarding God’s power over the sea is very important (scholarly dissertation) ...” And the question remains unanswered. It’s such things that gingoro is talking about.
It sounds as if Alexander is less skeptical than many American TEs regarding the Biblical miracles.
Evolution in itself does not require skepticism about Biblical miracles. But both evolutionary theory and the higher criticism of the Bible which cast doubt upon miracles sprang from the seed of naturalism. In some TEs (discussed above) the influence of that naturalism affects the reading of miracle stories.
Reply to this commentAugust 2nd 2010
penman,
wrt your question about a “better term than Evolutionary Creationist”, I´d drop most of the labels that have arisen in the context of discussions in North America on this topic. They are highly saturated in scientism most of the time. If not that, then they are positivistic, following the empirical and pragmatic schools in North American thought. And if that´s not enough, there´s a school of Christians -Calvin College- that arose in the United States in the 1980s, trying to legitimatize what it calls “methodological naturalism” as the founding principle of natural-physical sciences that is ´friendly´ to theists and theism.
I´ve been saying this for a couple of years, an alternative is just to label yourself, penman, as a Christian or theist who believes in God´s creation & in human creativity & who accepts certain aspects of biological evolution. Calling oneself a ´creationist´ is unnecessary & unhelpful except as a password for fundamentalists - like a secret handshake. ; )
It´s almost as if some people would like a disaclaimer attached to every single journal article & book published by natural-physical scientists that says: “This scientific theory about nature is *open* to miracles!”
Reply to this commentAugust 2nd 2010
Rich wrote:
“What I’m concerned with is what both sides say when they *do* talk about theology.”
The issue with ´intelligen design advocates,´ & I include you & Bilbo in this meaning, Rich, is that they rarely speak about the connections between ID & theology. Sure, there are examples of most ID leaders stating the ´designer´ is probably the God of the Bible. Dembski is quoted even more directly as speaking about the design of divine logos.
But from my observation, there has been no attempt to introiduce ID into systematic theology. Do you know of anyone who is doing this, Rich?
It is easy to point out that TE &/or EC likewise doesn´t have a clear statement of what defines their ´evolutionary theology´ from say ´open theology´ or ´process theology.´ But I have read TEs rejecting the latter two, while dancing with words about how ´evolutionary biology´ supposedly fits more appropriately into their systematic theologies than does ´design´.
In so far as what penman wants is apologetics, either ID or TE/EC can be employed, depending on situation & person. But ´creationist´ is banned as taboo!
Reply to this commentJust curious: would you like to see the IDM more active in the realm of theology, or not, Rich?