I would love to find out how Dr. Ted Davis would respond to this article, since he has contributed to Biologos, which is an evolutionary creationist organization. Would it be possible to ask him to write a counterpoint?
Reply
Edit
Ted Davis
August 18, 2023
The short answer is, I agree with Steven Barr (see the link above). When certain scientists, and certain anti-evolutionists, claim that evolution driven by “random” mutations is incompatible with purpose/design, both camps are (IMO) loading too much metaphysics onto how mathematically random processes are helpful in modeling various natural processes–including the weather. Is thermodynamics “atheistic,” simply b/c it relies on probability to understand how zillions of gas molecules behave as ensembles?
Reply
Edit
Prometheus Bound
August 26, 2023
I agree to some extent with Steven Barr’s analysis of the issue of ‘chance’, which I think can be supported by the observation of Proverbs that man rolls the die (random result) but God determines the outcome. But I am more interested in a response to the multiple misunderstandings the author had of the theory of evolution, the history of the idea, and Darwin’s contribution to the theory. I don’t think it wrong to have criticisms of evolution, but they need to be based on what the theory actually purports.
Reply
Edit
Max Leyf
February 2, 2024
Thank you for the comments and forgive my lack of responsiveness.
@Prometheus Bound, perhaps you would be obliged to explain the crucial points that I got wrong.
@Ted Davis, re the issue of “randomness,” as S. Barr hinted at in the linked essay, that something is random can never really be more than an epistemic designation and not an ontological one (for lack of a better term) because everything seems random until the logic of it is grasped. that it is useful in respect to predictive modelling to regard some phenomenon as ontologically random doesn’t prove that it is. and even so, I fail to see how this directly relates to Darwinian evolution however, because one thing the theory doesn’t do is make predictions.
Reply
Edit
Prometheus Bound
February 3, 2024
@Max Leyf, evolution does make predictions in much the same way as any other theory, though, like quantum theory, it cannot give exact predictions for a particular future event, since there are stochastic processes involved (i.e. mathematically random events; we can argue the ontology, but it seems that you have already admitted that phenomenologically speaking events can be random). It seems to me that throughout the article from start to finish you do not have a grasp on either the history of evolutionary theory nor the nature of the theory itself. It would require a very long article to counter each point. I will, however, note some specific misunderstandings and would be happy to send you a lengthier critique, since I would love to have constructive criticism on my own understanding of the issues. The first is your suggestion that “natural selection” is a chance process. Mutations are stochastic (they follow probability distributions but are specifically unpredictable), natural selection is a law-like process in which some creatures die because they cannot compete with other creatures that better utilize resources, escape predators, or other factors. So, for example, if on a particular island the fruit on certain trees become harder because of certain climactic or genetic factors, the birds of a certain species on that island that through genetics have the ability to crack and eat that fruit better will get more food and survive better than the birds that cannot do as well. The populations of the former birds will increase at the expense of the latter birds. This is natural selection in a nutshell. How that is teleological is hard to tell, since neither the birds nor the environment are being changed by any intelligent cause that can be ascertained statistically. Here are a few other misunderstandings: 1) you say that sexual selection is opposed to natural selection, but it is actually a part of the theory (though often discussed separately) and in “The Origin” Darwin addresses it. 2) The “Modern Synthesis” was not just an update of Darwin’s theory with Mendelian genetics, it was Mendelian genetics that allowed evolutionists to take Darwin’s theory of natural selection seriously! His theory was out of favor until that point (early 20th century). 3) “Selection” is misunderstood as teleological, because it misunderstands that evolutionary biologists use the word “selection” as a descriptive term (not a personification) simply refering to the process by which some living beings survive and others die in a particular enviroment, preserving a certain population of those living beings. It does not “identify and preserve genetic fitness through the chaos of generations” but is merely a description of the death of those who are less fit than others or the survival of those that are more fit. 4) Darwin did not propose a “blind” process that replaced artificial selection, but in fact had to spend a chapter of his book convincing his audience that artificial selection actually took place – that creatures were malleable. 5) You say that “natural selection” falls apart because the environment must include other organisms that are constantly changing. Darwin addressed this in “The Origin” as part of his theory. In fact he emphasized that the other organisms can be considered a larger influence on the course of evolution and natural selection than the nonliving world. 6) Scientists use the concept of “chance” in a very particular way, and it is not to say a cause is unknown, but that is statistically predictable; most Christians agree that quantum physics, which also works this way, is a science. 7) Epigenetics, though not completely worked out, is not Lamarckian but functions largely the way genetic mutations do. The reason it is not considered to be hugely influential in long-term evolution is because it does not transmit changes to the organism long-term (i.e. the changes are temporary). 8) That organisms “actively contribute to shaping the evolution of their own species” as you say, sounds like the experimentally disproved idea from the 1940s that animals specifically evolve to adapt to changed environments. The experiments showed that the adaptations (i.e., mutations) occur independently of the environmental changes. 9) You often talk as if “evolutionary theory” and “Darwinism” and “natural selection” are all identical ideas. They are quite different as can be seen by the fact that “evolution” of species was an idea that long predates Darwin, that “natural selection” is a part of his theory, and that “Darwinism” often refers to a modern synthesis that includes “natural selection” but also genetic drift, gene flow, and other processes. Anyway, these are some of the problems with your essay. I would be happy to continue this conversation with a more indepth analysis including more specific bibliographical references. Blessings!
Edit
Prometheus Bound
February 3, 2024
@leyfmax, my reply is above. I accidentally got your handle wrong.
First I would like to thank you for taking the time to formulate your response and express my appreciation for the considered objections that you have raised.
I will respond to each of the points that I could discern but first I would like to say that I don’t think that the disagreement we have is going to be resolved on the level at which it is framed. to illustrate what I mean, perhaps you will permit me to quote this somewhat lengthy exposition by Quine, which touches on an issue that is similar to the famous “incommensurability of paradigms” to which Kuhn drew attention and what Goethe also intuited and designated under the rubric of Vorstellungsart. Quine observes:
“The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience… But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole…
A recalcitrant experience can, I have already urged, be accommodated by any of various alternative re-evaluations in various alternative quarters of the total system; but, in the cases which we are now imagining, our natural tendency to disturb the total system as little as possible would lead us to focus our revisions upon these specific statements concerning brick houses or centaurs. These statements are felt, therefore, to have a sharper empirical reference than highly theoretical statements of physics or logic or ontology. The latter statements may be thought of as relatively centrally located within the total network, meaning merely that little preferential connection with any particular sense data obtrudes itself.
As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported ,into the situation as convenient intermediaries – not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer’s gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience.”
In other words, to grasp the real basis of disagreement over these issues, it is often necessary to effect a sort of foreground-background shift. So while I appreciate your offer to continue this conversation, it doesn’t strike me as a particularly fruitful prospect in itself. having read your substantive objections, I found each of them intelligible and cogent, but by no means dispositive, and I can’t see that anything you pointed out constitutes a fatal error in my argument or understanding. That being said, I want to again express my appreciation for the effort you put into your rebuttal and presumably readers can read our respective positions and judge for themselves. Also, I would like to discover some of your work so perhaps you could reach out by social media or find me on Twitter, where my handle is as it is listed on this site.
it’s really not possible to debate the merits of Darwinism without also confronting the entire paradigm and research program of Science as it has developed, more or less adventitiously in the sense that it is entirely conceivable that it could have developed along very different lines, through its key figureheads. the clarion for this program can be identified in Bacon’s rejection of formal and final causality out of the fourfold Aristotelian nexus. note that the majority of these figureheads also held heterodox beliefs in respect to this particular program, but only their orthodox ones (again, vis-à-vis this program) were assimilated into the historical stream (Newton is a well-known example of this). this reveals that the paradigm in question exerts a sort of “selection” process on proposed scientific theories and only allows for the propagation of those that confirm those of its program, which, as indicated, can be traced back to the Baconian axiom and consists in something like the tacit question of “how can we explain natural phenomena without recourse to intelligence, teleology, consciousness, God, or innumerable other phenomena that do not lend themselves to this kind of explanation?”
You wrote: “evolution does make predictions in much the same way as any other theory, though, like quantum theory, it cannot give exact predictions for a particular future event, since there are stochastic processes involved (i.e. mathematically random events; we can argue the ontology, but it seems that you have already admitted that phenomenologically speaking events can be random). It seems to me that throughout the article from start to finish you do not have a grasp on either the history of evolutionary theory nor the nature of the theory itself. It would require a very long article to counter each point. I will, however, note some specific misunderstandings and would be happy to send you a lengthier critique, since I would love to have constructive criticism on my own understanding of the issues. The first is your suggestion that “natural selection” is a chance process. Mutations are stochastic (they follow probability distributions but are specifically unpredictable), natural selection is a law-like process in which some creatures die because they cannot compete with other creatures that better utilize resources, escape predators, or other factors. So, for example, if on a particular island the fruit on certain trees become harder because of certain climactic or genetic factors, the birds of a certain species on that island that through genetics have the ability to crack and eat that fruit better will get more food and survive better than the birds that cannot do as well. The populations of the former birds will increase at the expense of the latter birds. This is natural selection in a nutshell. How that is teleological is hard to tell, since neither the birds nor the environment are being changed by any intelligent cause that can be ascertained statistically.”
I see your point here and your argument, but I don’t find it convincing and to me has the “motte-and-bailey” feeling since it seems that the only defensible position is to say that natural selection means that (a) “a thing will persist unless it is destroyed, at which case it will cease to persist.” but that is basically tautological and so the predictions it makes are of little interest. (b) but if it is saying more than that, scientifically it would have to make much more specific predictions. in the hypothetical scenario that you indicated, perhaps the bird population would evolve in the direction you proposed, but perhaps it would evolve to rely on beetles as an alternative foodsource, for which, as Haldane observed, “the Creator seems to have an inordinate fondness,” or perhaps it would be outcompeted by some other species, especially given that the climatic or genetic factors you suggested will be liable to influence the entire ecological balance of the island and not only this isolated species. in short, it’s impossible to make a specific prediction in any concrete case while to make a general one is like saying “when the rooster crows atop the manure pile, either it will snow or it won’t.” if the theory makes specific predictions, I would like to see them; if it doesn’t, why believe the theory? more generally, I would like to know what would constitute evidence for falsification of the theory (to appeal to the famous Popperian criterion of science). Darwin himself identified “gaps in the fossil records” as one of these criteria. everyone knows the fossil record is riddled with gaps, but no advocate of the theory takes this as grounds for dismissal of it. Instead, the gaps can be “accommodated by any of various alternative re-evaluations in various alternative quarters of the total system,” as Quine observed. this fact doesn’t disprove the theory per se but it should urge us to reconsider the categorical manner by which the theory is promulgated today.
Re teleology: it seems manifestly present in the very fabric of the whole question, and as a postulate for the theory of natural selection itself since if the birds didn’t actively and intelligently care about food to begin with, no change in the environment would be capable of producing the slightest influence on the species’ genome. that teleology is overlooked where it is manifestly present and then presumed to be absent when the complexity of a system increases beyond the scale of intelligibility does not strike me as a convincing reason to assent to the axiom that it doesn’t exist, or shown to be the stuff of pseudoscience. I touched on this issue above under the rubric of “the research program” or “paradigm” of Science.
You wrote: “Here are a few other misunderstandings: 1) you say that sexual selection is opposed to natural selection, but it is actually a part of the theory (though often discussed separately) and in “The Origin” Darwin addresses it.”
Yes but my criticism is not with Darwin but with the reductionistic paradigm of life and evolution that his work has been marshalled in justification of. Sexual selection is most definitely opposed to the notion that the evolution of species can be explained without appeal to teleology in nature because females of a species are part of nature.
You wrote: “2) The “Modern Synthesis” was not just an update of Darwin’s theory with Mendelian genetics, it was Mendelian genetics that allowed evolutionists to take Darwin’s theory of natural selection seriously! His theory was out of favor until that point (early 20th century).”
I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong about this but, as I’m sure you will concede, history is very complex and there is, as a rule, more than one correct narration of events. you emphasized one here and I emphasized another. what caused the Reformation: the invention of the printing press or Martin Luther’s 95 theses, or the selling of indulgences and other iniquities by the Catholic clergy?
You wrote “3) “Selection” is misunderstood as teleological, because it misunderstands that evolutionary biologists use the word “selection” as a descriptive term (not a personification) simply refering to the process by which some living beings survive and others die in a particular enviroment, preserving a certain population of those living beings. It does not “identify and preserve genetic fitness through the chaos of generations” but is merely a description of the death of those who are less fit than others or the survival of those that are more fit.”
It’s fair enough that you objected to my slightly poetic and perhaps hyperbolic phrase. but as to the point at issue, which is the same as you and I touched on above: attempting to remove teleology creates tautology while preserving it intact compels a radical reimagination of the paradigm.
You wrote “4) Darwin did not propose a “blind” process that replaced artificial selection, but in fact had to spend a chapter of his book convincing his audience that artificial selection actually took place – that creatures were malleable.”
This point I don’t really understand. Darwin presented the example of artificial selection, which is, intentional or teleological selection, to argue by analogy for the possibility of unintentional or natural selection. Is there something objectionable in this statement?
You wrote “5) You say that “natural selection” falls apart because the environment must include other organisms that are constantly changing. Darwin addressed this in “The Origin” as part of his theory. In fact he emphasized that the other organisms can be considered a larger influence on the course of evolution and natural selection than the nonliving world.”
alright, but then the very terms in which the proposed theory are framed are spurious and deceptively reified: there is no organism-environment dichotomy except as an abstraction.
You wrote “6) Scientists use the concept of “chance” in a very particular way, and it is not to say a cause is unknown, but that is statistically predictable; most Christians agree that quantum physics, which also works this way, is a science.”
presumably you think modern evolutionary theory is good and true, and presumably the fact that most scientists did not believe it before the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century did not have a bearing on this so I don’t think what most Christians think is really at issue. that something is statistically predictable, if it is not also explicable by real causes, implies, by omission, that the cause is unknown. statistics is a way of papering over ignorance of causes; hence, epistemically, “chance.” I’m not saying there is no place for statistics but there is a difference between statistics and knowledge, for lack of a better word, and it should be kept in mind.
You wrote “7) Epigenetics, though not completely worked out, is not Lamarckian but functions largely the way genetic mutations do. The reason it is not considered to be hugely influential in long-term evolution is because it does not transmit changes to the organism long-term (i.e. the changes are temporary).”
I see your view about this but I don’t find it convincing because behavior influences the epigenome which codes for gene expression which informs protein synthesis which informs tissue growth and phenotype which influences genetic fitness which in turn confers these configurations onto successive generations. the author in the linked article argues for a reconception of Darwinism along these lines so while I understand your position on this, you should be able to understand mine: https://aeon.co/essays/on-epigenetics-we-need-both-darwin-s-and-lamarck-s-theories. Perhaps time and further research will settle this, but only if scientists are willing to imagine alternatives to the reigning view. Otherwise, any potential counter-evidence will merely be “accommodated.”
You wrote “8) That organisms “actively contribute to shaping the evolution of their own species” as you say, sounds like the experimentally disproved idea from the 1940s that animals specifically evolve to adapt to changed environments. The experiments showed that the adaptations (i.e., mutations) occur independently of the environmental changes.”
I had the most trouble grasping this particular objection, perhaps because of the lack of specificity as to which experiments you have in mind but the statement you quoted is only an extension of points that, to my mind, have already been established.
You wrote “9) You often talk as if “evolutionary theory” and “Darwinism” and “natural selection” are all identical ideas. They are quite different as can be seen by the fact that “evolution” of species was an idea that long predates Darwin, that “natural selection” is a part of his theory, and that “Darwinism” often refers to a modern synthesis that includes “natural selection” but also genetic drift, gene flow, and other processes.”
this is a fair objection and I myself indicated that evolutionary theory did not originate with Darwin. but at the same time, it seems that for practical purposes, outside of the discussions of intellectual historians anyway, the terms “evolutionary theory” and “Darwinism” are used interchangeably. technically, I am guilty as charged of conflating “natural selection” with “Darwinism” so thank you for pointing out the error of my ways. that being said, I don’t think it is especially misleading since “Darwinism” is its own kind of metonymy to refer to a comprehensive theory just like “natural selection” is.
All blessings to you and thank you again for the time and effort you put into this.
Most of these "theories" are FALSE. Therefore, my aim is, "let's find the correct one." The candidates for me, at that time, years ago, were Freud, W. Reich, and Marx/Engels. So I made a big deal of studying them. I like "The German Ideology," but it was too difficult and I repeatedly read out of it but I only got up to page fourteen. The theory of the sexual desire, the theory of the orgone, the theory of the revolution. Those were my greatest hopes for Western Man. But with the false theories, one just gets rid of them. Does that sounds right?
So, my concern has been with the mere identification and rejection of falseness, not analyzing it to death. Whether the rejection of all that is false would be would be followed by, in theory, the discovery of something more ultimately correct is not a given. In fact, maybe this can be dangerous. If you are getting close, but you make a small mistake, you get closer to something really dangerous. Freud got close, but his nephew created mass hypnosis or indoctrination or something like that. And what about Darwin's nephew? The one who proposed directed evolution: eugenics. When a theory is almost correct, it may go haywire or get mis-interpreted.
I read up to here "the potential for life was present from the origin" That sounds like the orgone (orgone "energy" as I recall). Now don't tell me you are an expert on this subject as well!
comment thread from Altum, reproduced here for reference:
Ted Davis
August 15, 2023
For an alternative perspective based on Aquinas, see https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/12/chance-by-design.
Reply
Edit
Prometheus Bound
August 16, 2023
I would love to find out how Dr. Ted Davis would respond to this article, since he has contributed to Biologos, which is an evolutionary creationist organization. Would it be possible to ask him to write a counterpoint?
Reply
Edit
Ted Davis
August 18, 2023
The short answer is, I agree with Steven Barr (see the link above). When certain scientists, and certain anti-evolutionists, claim that evolution driven by “random” mutations is incompatible with purpose/design, both camps are (IMO) loading too much metaphysics onto how mathematically random processes are helpful in modeling various natural processes–including the weather. Is thermodynamics “atheistic,” simply b/c it relies on probability to understand how zillions of gas molecules behave as ensembles?
Reply
Edit
Prometheus Bound
August 26, 2023
I agree to some extent with Steven Barr’s analysis of the issue of ‘chance’, which I think can be supported by the observation of Proverbs that man rolls the die (random result) but God determines the outcome. But I am more interested in a response to the multiple misunderstandings the author had of the theory of evolution, the history of the idea, and Darwin’s contribution to the theory. I don’t think it wrong to have criticisms of evolution, but they need to be based on what the theory actually purports.
Reply
Edit
Max Leyf
February 2, 2024
Thank you for the comments and forgive my lack of responsiveness.
@Prometheus Bound, perhaps you would be obliged to explain the crucial points that I got wrong.
@Ted Davis, re the issue of “randomness,” as S. Barr hinted at in the linked essay, that something is random can never really be more than an epistemic designation and not an ontological one (for lack of a better term) because everything seems random until the logic of it is grasped. that it is useful in respect to predictive modelling to regard some phenomenon as ontologically random doesn’t prove that it is. and even so, I fail to see how this directly relates to Darwinian evolution however, because one thing the theory doesn’t do is make predictions.
Reply
Edit
Prometheus Bound
February 3, 2024
@Max Leyf, evolution does make predictions in much the same way as any other theory, though, like quantum theory, it cannot give exact predictions for a particular future event, since there are stochastic processes involved (i.e. mathematically random events; we can argue the ontology, but it seems that you have already admitted that phenomenologically speaking events can be random). It seems to me that throughout the article from start to finish you do not have a grasp on either the history of evolutionary theory nor the nature of the theory itself. It would require a very long article to counter each point. I will, however, note some specific misunderstandings and would be happy to send you a lengthier critique, since I would love to have constructive criticism on my own understanding of the issues. The first is your suggestion that “natural selection” is a chance process. Mutations are stochastic (they follow probability distributions but are specifically unpredictable), natural selection is a law-like process in which some creatures die because they cannot compete with other creatures that better utilize resources, escape predators, or other factors. So, for example, if on a particular island the fruit on certain trees become harder because of certain climactic or genetic factors, the birds of a certain species on that island that through genetics have the ability to crack and eat that fruit better will get more food and survive better than the birds that cannot do as well. The populations of the former birds will increase at the expense of the latter birds. This is natural selection in a nutshell. How that is teleological is hard to tell, since neither the birds nor the environment are being changed by any intelligent cause that can be ascertained statistically. Here are a few other misunderstandings: 1) you say that sexual selection is opposed to natural selection, but it is actually a part of the theory (though often discussed separately) and in “The Origin” Darwin addresses it. 2) The “Modern Synthesis” was not just an update of Darwin’s theory with Mendelian genetics, it was Mendelian genetics that allowed evolutionists to take Darwin’s theory of natural selection seriously! His theory was out of favor until that point (early 20th century). 3) “Selection” is misunderstood as teleological, because it misunderstands that evolutionary biologists use the word “selection” as a descriptive term (not a personification) simply refering to the process by which some living beings survive and others die in a particular enviroment, preserving a certain population of those living beings. It does not “identify and preserve genetic fitness through the chaos of generations” but is merely a description of the death of those who are less fit than others or the survival of those that are more fit. 4) Darwin did not propose a “blind” process that replaced artificial selection, but in fact had to spend a chapter of his book convincing his audience that artificial selection actually took place – that creatures were malleable. 5) You say that “natural selection” falls apart because the environment must include other organisms that are constantly changing. Darwin addressed this in “The Origin” as part of his theory. In fact he emphasized that the other organisms can be considered a larger influence on the course of evolution and natural selection than the nonliving world. 6) Scientists use the concept of “chance” in a very particular way, and it is not to say a cause is unknown, but that is statistically predictable; most Christians agree that quantum physics, which also works this way, is a science. 7) Epigenetics, though not completely worked out, is not Lamarckian but functions largely the way genetic mutations do. The reason it is not considered to be hugely influential in long-term evolution is because it does not transmit changes to the organism long-term (i.e. the changes are temporary). 8) That organisms “actively contribute to shaping the evolution of their own species” as you say, sounds like the experimentally disproved idea from the 1940s that animals specifically evolve to adapt to changed environments. The experiments showed that the adaptations (i.e., mutations) occur independently of the environmental changes. 9) You often talk as if “evolutionary theory” and “Darwinism” and “natural selection” are all identical ideas. They are quite different as can be seen by the fact that “evolution” of species was an idea that long predates Darwin, that “natural selection” is a part of his theory, and that “Darwinism” often refers to a modern synthesis that includes “natural selection” but also genetic drift, gene flow, and other processes. Anyway, these are some of the problems with your essay. I would be happy to continue this conversation with a more indepth analysis including more specific bibliographical references. Blessings!
Edit
Prometheus Bound
February 3, 2024
@leyfmax, my reply is above. I accidentally got your handle wrong.
Edit
Max Leyf
February 3, 2024
First I would like to thank you for taking the time to formulate your response and express my appreciation for the considered objections that you have raised.
I will respond to each of the points that I could discern but first I would like to say that I don’t think that the disagreement we have is going to be resolved on the level at which it is framed. to illustrate what I mean, perhaps you will permit me to quote this somewhat lengthy exposition by Quine, which touches on an issue that is similar to the famous “incommensurability of paradigms” to which Kuhn drew attention and what Goethe also intuited and designated under the rubric of Vorstellungsart. Quine observes:
“The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges on experience only along the edges. Or, to change the figure, total science is like a field of force whose boundary conditions are experience… But the total field is so undetermined by its boundary conditions, experience, that there is much latitude of choice as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of any single contrary experience. No particular experiences are linked with any particular statements in the interior of the field, except indirectly through considerations of equilibrium affecting the field as a whole…
A recalcitrant experience can, I have already urged, be accommodated by any of various alternative re-evaluations in various alternative quarters of the total system; but, in the cases which we are now imagining, our natural tendency to disturb the total system as little as possible would lead us to focus our revisions upon these specific statements concerning brick houses or centaurs. These statements are felt, therefore, to have a sharper empirical reference than highly theoretical statements of physics or logic or ontology. The latter statements may be thought of as relatively centrally located within the total network, meaning merely that little preferential connection with any particular sense data obtrudes itself.
As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported ,into the situation as convenient intermediaries – not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer’s gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience.”
In other words, to grasp the real basis of disagreement over these issues, it is often necessary to effect a sort of foreground-background shift. So while I appreciate your offer to continue this conversation, it doesn’t strike me as a particularly fruitful prospect in itself. having read your substantive objections, I found each of them intelligible and cogent, but by no means dispositive, and I can’t see that anything you pointed out constitutes a fatal error in my argument or understanding. That being said, I want to again express my appreciation for the effort you put into your rebuttal and presumably readers can read our respective positions and judge for themselves. Also, I would like to discover some of your work so perhaps you could reach out by social media or find me on Twitter, where my handle is as it is listed on this site.
it’s really not possible to debate the merits of Darwinism without also confronting the entire paradigm and research program of Science as it has developed, more or less adventitiously in the sense that it is entirely conceivable that it could have developed along very different lines, through its key figureheads. the clarion for this program can be identified in Bacon’s rejection of formal and final causality out of the fourfold Aristotelian nexus. note that the majority of these figureheads also held heterodox beliefs in respect to this particular program, but only their orthodox ones (again, vis-à-vis this program) were assimilated into the historical stream (Newton is a well-known example of this). this reveals that the paradigm in question exerts a sort of “selection” process on proposed scientific theories and only allows for the propagation of those that confirm those of its program, which, as indicated, can be traced back to the Baconian axiom and consists in something like the tacit question of “how can we explain natural phenomena without recourse to intelligence, teleology, consciousness, God, or innumerable other phenomena that do not lend themselves to this kind of explanation?”
You wrote: “evolution does make predictions in much the same way as any other theory, though, like quantum theory, it cannot give exact predictions for a particular future event, since there are stochastic processes involved (i.e. mathematically random events; we can argue the ontology, but it seems that you have already admitted that phenomenologically speaking events can be random). It seems to me that throughout the article from start to finish you do not have a grasp on either the history of evolutionary theory nor the nature of the theory itself. It would require a very long article to counter each point. I will, however, note some specific misunderstandings and would be happy to send you a lengthier critique, since I would love to have constructive criticism on my own understanding of the issues. The first is your suggestion that “natural selection” is a chance process. Mutations are stochastic (they follow probability distributions but are specifically unpredictable), natural selection is a law-like process in which some creatures die because they cannot compete with other creatures that better utilize resources, escape predators, or other factors. So, for example, if on a particular island the fruit on certain trees become harder because of certain climactic or genetic factors, the birds of a certain species on that island that through genetics have the ability to crack and eat that fruit better will get more food and survive better than the birds that cannot do as well. The populations of the former birds will increase at the expense of the latter birds. This is natural selection in a nutshell. How that is teleological is hard to tell, since neither the birds nor the environment are being changed by any intelligent cause that can be ascertained statistically.”
I see your point here and your argument, but I don’t find it convincing and to me has the “motte-and-bailey” feeling since it seems that the only defensible position is to say that natural selection means that (a) “a thing will persist unless it is destroyed, at which case it will cease to persist.” but that is basically tautological and so the predictions it makes are of little interest. (b) but if it is saying more than that, scientifically it would have to make much more specific predictions. in the hypothetical scenario that you indicated, perhaps the bird population would evolve in the direction you proposed, but perhaps it would evolve to rely on beetles as an alternative foodsource, for which, as Haldane observed, “the Creator seems to have an inordinate fondness,” or perhaps it would be outcompeted by some other species, especially given that the climatic or genetic factors you suggested will be liable to influence the entire ecological balance of the island and not only this isolated species. in short, it’s impossible to make a specific prediction in any concrete case while to make a general one is like saying “when the rooster crows atop the manure pile, either it will snow or it won’t.” if the theory makes specific predictions, I would like to see them; if it doesn’t, why believe the theory? more generally, I would like to know what would constitute evidence for falsification of the theory (to appeal to the famous Popperian criterion of science). Darwin himself identified “gaps in the fossil records” as one of these criteria. everyone knows the fossil record is riddled with gaps, but no advocate of the theory takes this as grounds for dismissal of it. Instead, the gaps can be “accommodated by any of various alternative re-evaluations in various alternative quarters of the total system,” as Quine observed. this fact doesn’t disprove the theory per se but it should urge us to reconsider the categorical manner by which the theory is promulgated today.
Re teleology: it seems manifestly present in the very fabric of the whole question, and as a postulate for the theory of natural selection itself since if the birds didn’t actively and intelligently care about food to begin with, no change in the environment would be capable of producing the slightest influence on the species’ genome. that teleology is overlooked where it is manifestly present and then presumed to be absent when the complexity of a system increases beyond the scale of intelligibility does not strike me as a convincing reason to assent to the axiom that it doesn’t exist, or shown to be the stuff of pseudoscience. I touched on this issue above under the rubric of “the research program” or “paradigm” of Science.
You wrote: “Here are a few other misunderstandings: 1) you say that sexual selection is opposed to natural selection, but it is actually a part of the theory (though often discussed separately) and in “The Origin” Darwin addresses it.”
Yes but my criticism is not with Darwin but with the reductionistic paradigm of life and evolution that his work has been marshalled in justification of. Sexual selection is most definitely opposed to the notion that the evolution of species can be explained without appeal to teleology in nature because females of a species are part of nature.
You wrote: “2) The “Modern Synthesis” was not just an update of Darwin’s theory with Mendelian genetics, it was Mendelian genetics that allowed evolutionists to take Darwin’s theory of natural selection seriously! His theory was out of favor until that point (early 20th century).”
I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong about this but, as I’m sure you will concede, history is very complex and there is, as a rule, more than one correct narration of events. you emphasized one here and I emphasized another. what caused the Reformation: the invention of the printing press or Martin Luther’s 95 theses, or the selling of indulgences and other iniquities by the Catholic clergy?
You wrote “3) “Selection” is misunderstood as teleological, because it misunderstands that evolutionary biologists use the word “selection” as a descriptive term (not a personification) simply refering to the process by which some living beings survive and others die in a particular enviroment, preserving a certain population of those living beings. It does not “identify and preserve genetic fitness through the chaos of generations” but is merely a description of the death of those who are less fit than others or the survival of those that are more fit.”
It’s fair enough that you objected to my slightly poetic and perhaps hyperbolic phrase. but as to the point at issue, which is the same as you and I touched on above: attempting to remove teleology creates tautology while preserving it intact compels a radical reimagination of the paradigm.
You wrote “4) Darwin did not propose a “blind” process that replaced artificial selection, but in fact had to spend a chapter of his book convincing his audience that artificial selection actually took place – that creatures were malleable.”
This point I don’t really understand. Darwin presented the example of artificial selection, which is, intentional or teleological selection, to argue by analogy for the possibility of unintentional or natural selection. Is there something objectionable in this statement?
You wrote “5) You say that “natural selection” falls apart because the environment must include other organisms that are constantly changing. Darwin addressed this in “The Origin” as part of his theory. In fact he emphasized that the other organisms can be considered a larger influence on the course of evolution and natural selection than the nonliving world.”
alright, but then the very terms in which the proposed theory are framed are spurious and deceptively reified: there is no organism-environment dichotomy except as an abstraction.
You wrote “6) Scientists use the concept of “chance” in a very particular way, and it is not to say a cause is unknown, but that is statistically predictable; most Christians agree that quantum physics, which also works this way, is a science.”
presumably you think modern evolutionary theory is good and true, and presumably the fact that most scientists did not believe it before the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century did not have a bearing on this so I don’t think what most Christians think is really at issue. that something is statistically predictable, if it is not also explicable by real causes, implies, by omission, that the cause is unknown. statistics is a way of papering over ignorance of causes; hence, epistemically, “chance.” I’m not saying there is no place for statistics but there is a difference between statistics and knowledge, for lack of a better word, and it should be kept in mind.
You wrote “7) Epigenetics, though not completely worked out, is not Lamarckian but functions largely the way genetic mutations do. The reason it is not considered to be hugely influential in long-term evolution is because it does not transmit changes to the organism long-term (i.e. the changes are temporary).”
I see your view about this but I don’t find it convincing because behavior influences the epigenome which codes for gene expression which informs protein synthesis which informs tissue growth and phenotype which influences genetic fitness which in turn confers these configurations onto successive generations. the author in the linked article argues for a reconception of Darwinism along these lines so while I understand your position on this, you should be able to understand mine: https://aeon.co/essays/on-epigenetics-we-need-both-darwin-s-and-lamarck-s-theories. Perhaps time and further research will settle this, but only if scientists are willing to imagine alternatives to the reigning view. Otherwise, any potential counter-evidence will merely be “accommodated.”
You wrote “8) That organisms “actively contribute to shaping the evolution of their own species” as you say, sounds like the experimentally disproved idea from the 1940s that animals specifically evolve to adapt to changed environments. The experiments showed that the adaptations (i.e., mutations) occur independently of the environmental changes.”
I had the most trouble grasping this particular objection, perhaps because of the lack of specificity as to which experiments you have in mind but the statement you quoted is only an extension of points that, to my mind, have already been established.
You wrote “9) You often talk as if “evolutionary theory” and “Darwinism” and “natural selection” are all identical ideas. They are quite different as can be seen by the fact that “evolution” of species was an idea that long predates Darwin, that “natural selection” is a part of his theory, and that “Darwinism” often refers to a modern synthesis that includes “natural selection” but also genetic drift, gene flow, and other processes.”
this is a fair objection and I myself indicated that evolutionary theory did not originate with Darwin. but at the same time, it seems that for practical purposes, outside of the discussions of intellectual historians anyway, the terms “evolutionary theory” and “Darwinism” are used interchangeably. technically, I am guilty as charged of conflating “natural selection” with “Darwinism” so thank you for pointing out the error of my ways. that being said, I don’t think it is especially misleading since “Darwinism” is its own kind of metonymy to refer to a comprehensive theory just like “natural selection” is.
All blessings to you and thank you again for the time and effort you put into this.
Most of these "theories" are FALSE. Therefore, my aim is, "let's find the correct one." The candidates for me, at that time, years ago, were Freud, W. Reich, and Marx/Engels. So I made a big deal of studying them. I like "The German Ideology," but it was too difficult and I repeatedly read out of it but I only got up to page fourteen. The theory of the sexual desire, the theory of the orgone, the theory of the revolution. Those were my greatest hopes for Western Man. But with the false theories, one just gets rid of them. Does that sounds right?
So, my concern has been with the mere identification and rejection of falseness, not analyzing it to death. Whether the rejection of all that is false would be would be followed by, in theory, the discovery of something more ultimately correct is not a given. In fact, maybe this can be dangerous. If you are getting close, but you make a small mistake, you get closer to something really dangerous. Freud got close, but his nephew created mass hypnosis or indoctrination or something like that. And what about Darwin's nephew? The one who proposed directed evolution: eugenics. When a theory is almost correct, it may go haywire or get mis-interpreted.
I read up to here "the potential for life was present from the origin" That sounds like the orgone (orgone "energy" as I recall). Now don't tell me you are an expert on this subject as well!