On the Discovery Institute website, John G. West gives a three-part response to some things I said on this blog. In the first part he says:
“Barr claims that ‘[w]hen scientists say that certain things in nature are random, this does mean that Nature is in a certain sense blind; it does not imply anything about God’s knowledge or purposes.’ I don’t know which ‘scientists’ Barr thinks he is speaking for, but they surely aren’t most evolutionary biologists. When Darwinian biologists say that natural selection is a blind process fueled by random biological changes, they most assuredly think that this claim contradicts the belief that evolution is guided—by God or any other intelligent cause.”
In the sentence that West quotes, I am speaking very generally about what scientists mean by the word random in the context of their research. As I have noted on many occasions, there are over 50,000 papers in the technical scientific journals that use the word random in the title. It is used to discuss not just genetic mutations, but a vast range of natural phenomena, including the motions of molecules in a gas, quantum fluctuations, noise in electronic circuits, distributions of galaxies, weather patterns, and a thousand other things. Random is a ubiquitous term in science. Not being a scientist, West is perhaps unaware of how widely and frequently the word is used in research. When I spoke about what scientists mean “when they say that certain things in nature are random”, I was “speaking for” (in the sense of explaining the usage of) essentially all scientists when they are speaking as scientists, as they do in their published research.
As far as the philosophical implications of the scientific concept of randomness go, I was not speaking for anyone but myself. I was not making a point about what many or most scientists may think those philosophical implications are, but about what those implications actually are. Whether A implies B cannot be determined by opinion surveys, but only by logical analysis. A thousand scientists swearing up and down that natural selection has atheist implications means absolutely nothing if they cannot support their claim with a cogent argument.
If I am right in saying that evolutionary biology itself is not atheistic in its implications, then how do I explain the fact so many evolutionary biologists are atheists? In my view, there is not a single, simple explanation for this, but a complicated set of historical and sociological factors. Since its inception, evolutionary biology has been the center of a constant battle between fanatical enemies of religion on one hand and biblical literalists on the other, who have fed off each other and in many ways reinforced each other.
That has become part of the narrative surrounding the field of biology, so that many people who go into that area are socialized into anti-religious attitudes. Moreover, certain kinds of people tend to be drawn to certain professions. At least one study concludes that the over-representation of atheists in science is due to atheists being drawn to science as a profession rather than scientific training or information making people lose their faith. This is a complicated subject, and I don’t propose to attempt a complete theory of the origins and causes of scientific atheism. It is, however, very simple-minded (and also not very helpful to the cause of religion) to suppose that scientific atheism is just a consequence of the fact that scientific theories logically entail atheism.
I must also rise in defense of the reputation of Francis Collins, whose ideas are being garbled (again) by West. Collins does believe that every physical event that happens in the world is known and willed by God from all eternity. West quotes some statements by Collins on “junk DNA” as if they somehow proved otherwise; but they do no such thing. Here is what West writes:
“Collins goes on at length about ‘Ancient Repetitive Elements,’ which he disparages as ‘genetic flotsam and jetsam’ that make up ‘roughly 45 percent of the human genome.’ Collins concedes that ‘some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as “junk DNA” just betrays our current level of ignorance. And indeed, some small fraction of them may play important regulatory roles. But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation.’ [Language of God, p. 156, emphasis added by West] In other words, Collins rejects as credulous the idea that such DNA were planned by God for a reason. So much for the idea that God knew and specified the outcomes of evolution from eternity.”
This is a spectacular example of misreading and non sequitur on West’s part. There is absolutely nothing in the statements he quotes from Collins about junk DNA that implies that Collins doubts or denies that “that God knew and specified the outcomes of evolution from eternity.”
What Collins is asserting is simply that large parts of the genomes of human beings and other living things serve no biological purpose and are not “functional elements.” And it seems to me that it is quite silly to see this as theologically problematic. Does any sane person think that every feature of his body has a biological function? What is the biological function of knock-knees or freckles? Maybe freckles are biologically important; but is it really a dangerous heresy to think otherwise?
Finally, I must say something in my own defense. West says,
“The issue is whether human beings can discern evidence of God’s activity in nature through the things He created. Darwinists deny this, and Collins and Barr seem to as well (at least in the area of biology).”
Once again, West gets my views completely wrong. Now he is, in effect, accusing me (and Collins) of rejecting the teaching of St. Paul. The phrase “evidence of God’s activity in nature through the things He created” is almost a direct quote from Romans 1:20. On the basis of this text, the First Vatican Council taught that the existence of God “can, from created things, be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason.” I accept with complete conviction what the Apostle Paul and the First Vatican Council taught; but some distinctions are in order. First, there are many kinds of arguments for God’s existence and activity in the world; design arguments are just one kind. Second, there are several kinds of design arguments, only some of which are based on biology. Third, not all design arguments based on biology are of the kind made by the Intelligent Design movement, and not all of them presuppose that Darwinian evolution is false. It is a huge leap of logic to jump over all these crucial distinctions and say that because someone defends the basic validity of Darwinian evolution and thinks the arguments of the ID movement are shaky and inadequate he must therefore be denying that God’s activity in the world is knowable through the things he has created.
It is worth pointing out that St. Paul’s statement in Romans is a clear allusion to a passage from the Book of Wisdom (which was part of the Greek Old Testament used by the early Church and is in the Catholic and Orthodox canon of Scripture).
“For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is, and from studying the works did not discern the artisan; but either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circuit of the stars, or the mighty water, or the luminaries of heaven—the governors of the world—they considered gods. Now if out of joy in their beauty they thought these things to be gods, let them know how far more excellent is the Lord than these; for the original source of beauty fashioned them. Or if they were struck by the might and energy of these things, let them from these things realize how much more powerful is he who made them. For from the greatness and the beauty of created things their original author, by analogy, is seen. But yet, for these men the blame is less; for though they have indeed gone astray, they perhaps seek God and wish to find him. For they search busily among his works, but are distracted by what they see, because the things seen are fair. But again, not even these men have an excuse. For if they so far succeeded in knowledge that they could speculate about the world, how did they not more quickly find its Lord?” (Wisdom 13:1–9)
This wonderful passage from Wisdom is in effect a design argument for the existence of God. It is noteworthy that this passage does not point at all to biological phenomena, let alone biological complexity.
To say that there is evidence of design in the world does not mean that every single thing one sees in the world, taken by itself, standing alone, constitutes persuasive evidence of that design. Everything is part of the divine plan, but the divine plan is not always and everywhere evident on the surface of things. There are valid design arguments, but that does not mean that all design arguments are valid. Darwinism has indeed made certain kinds of design argument more difficult to make; but, happily, science has made other kinds of design argument easier to make. The fact that I would criticize certain biological design arguments as shaky or simplistic doesn’t mean that I think all biological design arguments are. I think good biological design arguments can be made, but it is a challenging task to formulate them in a way that will be persuasive to knowledgeable people today. In my view, it is more effective at present to use design arguments of another sort.
What is needed in thinking about such delicate matters as evolution and theology is careful attention to the meanings of words, to the structure of arguments, to the logical implications of ideas, to the distinction between scientific statements and philosophical extrapolations from them, and to the difference between facts, on the one hand, and the tendentious presentation of or propagandistic use of them, on the other. In other words, what is needed is clear thought.
June 20th, 2009 | 4:32 pm
All contributors to this discussion would to well to emulate Prof. Barr’s precision and clarity in thought and exposition.
June 20th, 2009 | 8:05 pm
Consider fair dice vs loaded dice. Using observation and statistics, we can objectively determine whether a given set of dice is fair (truly random) or loaded (biased toward a certain outcome). The two possibilities are mutually exclusive. Either the dice are fair, or they are not.
God may very well know the exact outcome of a toss of either kind of dice. God may also be able to influence the outcome in either case. But this doesn’t change whether a given set of dice is, objectively, fair or loaded.
Likewise, however God may have influenced the evolution of life on this planet, we can objectively determine whether this was due to a measurably random process, or whether it was due to a non-random intelligent process that was biased toward a certain outcome. These two possibilities are mutually exclusive.
Just as we can empirically determine whether a set of dice is fair or loaded, we can also empirically determine which type of process produced the evolution of life on earth.
Darwinism proposes that evolution is based on events that are truly random. As with fair dice, this has observable consequences. Intelligent Design proposes that evolution is based on events that are biased toward a certain outcome by an intelligent agent. As with loaded dice, this has (different) observable consequences.
The point here is that Intelligent Design is asking empirical, testable questions. If Intelligent Design proves to be false, it still may be true that God is somehow working within the random events of a Darwinian process to produce the facts of evolution that we see around us.
However, if Intelligent Design proves to be true, then this unequivocally disproves Darwinism. It means that God has explicitly chosen not to work within random events.
And so far, there is no observable evidence to show that truly random events were able to produce the Genetic Code, or all the major phyla that emerged during the Cambrian Explosion, or sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction.
Yes, it may be possible that God can work through seemingly random events. But it may also be true that God has chosen not to work through random events.
The answer this question will be determined by objective evidence. Mr. Barr doesn’t seem to understand this.
June 21st, 2009 | 5:58 pm
“What Collins is asserting is simply that large parts of the genomes of human beings and other living things serve no biological purpose and are not “functional elements”. And it seems to me that it is quite silly to see this as theologically problematic. Does any sane person think that every feature of his body has a biological function? What is the biological function of knock-knees or freckles? Maybe freckles are biologically important;”
Less and less of the DNA code has been found to be “junk” the more it studied. In fact several authorities including an ENCODE director have now given up the idea of “junk” DNA.
Freckles and knock knees are defects and are most likely due to genetic mutations.
All features of the human body have a function unless the are damaged; even the appendix, coccyx and the platysma.
There is no evidence GOD created life in a piecemeal fashion as believed by evolutionists, in fact quite the opposite; It was all created at once and much of it was wiped out in the global flood.
June 22nd, 2009 | 6:26 am
Elegant, and informed response. Barr is one of the clearest heads in this game and clearly understands the difference between scientific theory and popular scientific rhetoric. The entire scientific enterprise is simply not adequately, or even remotely, represented by the handful of polemicists that the ID camp likes to cite.
If you haven’t read Barr’s “Modern Physics and Ancient Faith” I recommend it highly.
June 22nd, 2009 | 1:23 pm
Nice work, Steve. You were able to put clearly in writing what has been percolating inside me since I first became interested in science/theology issues during my PhD days at Fordham in the mid-80s.
June 22nd, 2009 | 3:39 pm
Hi Steve. I’ll take your word for it that West misrepresented your theological views, and he might have misrepresented Collins (though, imo, Collins is too inconsistent on this score to know precisely what his position is for sure). However, I think he was on target when he said that you are engaged in wishful thinking:
Steve, the problem, as I see it, is that your argument here basically boils down to “Because we physicists don’t mean that something is unguided when we call it ‘random’, evolutionary biologists don’t either.”
It just doesn’t follow. Notice that all, or nearly all, of the examples that West gives of evolutionary biologists affirming that evolution was unguided and unplanned come from science textbooks, not from philosophy textbooks. These are scientists speaking as scientists, or at least they believe themselves to be. They clearly don’t subscribe to the same science/philosophy divide that you are advocating.
Moreover, West shows that Darwin himself was indeed trying to say that evolution is unguided and unplanned. It’s not merely the opinions of scientists spouting off about philosophy. The unguidedness is entailed in the theory itself.
You seem to be committed to this extremely rigid definition of a theory, in which a theory can contain no philosophical assertions (such as the assertion that evolution is unguided), and that any such beliefs on the part of scientists must be the result of them drawing their own inferences from the theory, rather than being implied by the theory itself.
But what if there were a theory that really did state and entail that the origin of humans really was unguided and unplanned? What if, despite this theory’s philosophical content, it was widely advertised by scientists as being a scientific theory, and its philosophical content was printed in science textbooks as science?
What would you say in such a scenario? Would you say that this widely promoted theory wasn’t really science? That the entire field on which it was based was mostly philosophy rather than science? That all those science textbooks were really philosophy textbooks? And what could ever persuade you that such a scenario had taken place?
It seems to me that you are straining hard to deny the possibility of such a scenario by definitional fiat. It also seems to me that this scenario is actually what is happening, and you are blinded to that fact by your desire to lay out a tidy science/philosophy divide, and to pretend that all scientists and scientific disciplines subscribe to that same divide.
You’ve got practically the entire field of evolutionary biology contradicting your claim that Darwin’s theory doesn’t definitionally entail unguidedness, even in their textbooks and scientific articles, and yet you still insist that this is merely something they are all personally inferring themselves, and not part of the theory’s definition. Again, how could you possibly be convinced otherwise?
You suggest various explanations for the over-representation of atheists in evolutionary biology, but do you really think such explanations can even come close to explaining such an incredibly lopsided figure as 87%?
And why do even theists in the field such as Ken Miller argue that humans were genuinely unplanned and unintended by God? Why would a theist like Miller be driven to unnecessarily draw such philosophical inferences from a scientific theory that didn’t entail them? Is it not more plausible that Miller (and others like him) is simply taking the theory for what it says, while straining to square it with some form of theism? How else could he have arrived at such a weak and barely coherent theology? And again, what would possibly persuade you that this is taking place?
June 22nd, 2009 | 6:07 pm
Stephen,
Thank for you for the clear and well reasoned posting. I’ve always enjoyed your contributions to First Things, and its good to see you as a regular contributor on this blog.
Deuce,
I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that scientists generally use the word “random” to mean “unknown to and unwilled by providence”, given that providence is never discussed in scientific literature in the first place.
And while the 85% atheist rate of biologists is high (actually, I’m seeing figures ranging from 40% to 90% depending on what level of academia or professional association one uses to determine who is a biologist) it’s not necessarily out of whack with other academic disciplines ranging from psychology and computer science to history and mathematics.
June 23rd, 2009 | 5:44 pm
Brendan:
This is really frustrating. Did you just not read what I wrote, beyond affirming to yourself what you assumed I was saying? I manifestly did *not* say that scientists “generally use the word ‘random’ to mean ‘unknown to and unwilled by providence.’”
Please read my post again, and take a bit of care this time. I said that this is the mainstream definition of “random” in evolutionary biology specifically, not in science in general. I plainly acknowledged, for instance, that the definition of “random” that Steve prefers is the one used in his own field (physics).
The evidence for this was already gone over by West. It’s the definition explicitly provided in many textbooks and scientific articles, and even by Darwin himself. There are also logical reasons that “random”, as used in Darwinian explanation, necessarily implies “unintended”, but I don’t have the space to go over them here.
The 85% figure is not for all biologists, but for evolutionary biologists specifically (though the percentage for biologists in general is higher than most sciences). And no, the figure isn’t nearly as high in those other fields you mention, especially mathematics.
June 23rd, 2009 | 8:48 pm
I apologize if the answer to this question is answered in the text of the dialogue between Mr. West and Mr. Barr, but I couldn’t find it.
Is Mr. Barr speaking of random cell mutation as similar to the randomness found in quantum physics where sometimes the type of result observed is truly probabilistic? I believe there is a limited number of ways a gene can mutate, is the particular mutation that results truly as probabilistic as finding a photon in a particular section of a lightwave?
June 24th, 2009 | 12:40 am
Deuce:
You state “You [Barr] seem to be committed to this extremely rigid definition of a theory, in which a theory can contain no philosophical assertions (such as the assertion that evolution is unguided).”
Barr’s rigid definition is rigid because the generally accepted definition of a scientific hypothesis–and by extension a theory–requires that it be falsifiable. “Unguided” is by definition a term that is unfalsifiable because a negative can’t be falsified.
This doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be hypothesized. It does mean we shouldn’t expect scientists to treat such a hypothesis as something other than metaphysics.
June 24th, 2009 | 9:51 am
Again, you guys seem hellbent on misreading what I said. Maybe Barr’s rigid definition of “theory” is what the standard accepted definition *should be*, but that’s not what it *is* in evolutionary biology. My point is, Barr’s definition notwithstanding, the generally accepted definition of “random” in evolutionary biology is indeed “unguided”, and in fact, this definition is explicit in the predominant theory.
Barr seems to be reasoning that because a “theory”, as he defines the word, can’t have metaphysical content, therefore it’s logically impossible for Darwin’s theory to have metaphysical content, or for scientists to present their metaphysics as science, regardless of the observable fact that this is indeed what is happening evolutionary biology.
Again, why is this so hard? I didn’t say that we should expect scientists to treat metaphysics as science. On the contrary, I believe that scientists ought to keep their metaphysics out of their science.
My point is that, regardless of what they *should* be doing, evolutionary biologists *are in fact* treating their metaphysics as science, because their theory explicitly requires a metaphysical premise (namely, that variations are literally unplanned).
Barr seems to be arguing that because *proper* science doesn’t contain metaphysics, this *couldn’t possibly* be happening. But it is happening.
Look, here’s yet another recent scientific article (from the Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research) in which this is made explicit. You folks have got to stop living in denial about this. If you believe (as I do) that science should be kept separate from metaphysics, then your disagreement is not with me, but with these scientists:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/jzs/2009/00000047/00000001/art00003%3Bjsessionid=8i4867qb7ccqp.alexandra
June 24th, 2009 | 1:50 pm
In answer to Christopher Cobb, I agree that one can tell with some degree of confidence whether dice are loaded or fair by a statistical analysis of many rolls. I also agree that in theory one could tell the difference between the “genetic dice” being loaded or not by statistical analysis. However, I don’t see how anyone can make such an analysis at present, since it would require knowing a great deal about the details of evolutionary history that no one knows.
In answer to Mark Hobart, If it is theologically acceptable to admit that the genome of a person can contain segments that are damaged and defective — and thus of actual harm to the creature, why is it any less so to admit that it may contain segments that are simply useless to the creature? If God can allow the vicissitudes of life to damage genomes, why is it impossible to imagine God allowing harmless elements such as junk DNA to be introduced into the genome by such vicissitudes? Besides which, I am not sure that freckles are a defect.
In answer to the Deuce, I am aware that some high-school biology textbooks say these things. The fact that such statements are in science textbooks doesn’t mean they belong there. Statements like “evolution has no goal” (which West cites from a recent textbook) are ambiguous and philosophically loaded and shouldn’t be put in textbooks without careful qualification.
You say, “Darwin himself was indeed trying to say that evolution is unguided and unplanned. It’s not merely the opinions of scientists spouting off about philosophy. The unguidedness is entailed in the theory itself.” However, not everything Darwin believed philosophically — even about his own theory — ought to be thought of as part of “the theory itself”, as you put it. Newton had funny ideas about space being the divine “sensorium” (sense organ). But though that is a Newtonian idea, in the historical sense that Mr. Newton believed it, it is not a part of “Newtonian physics”.
As far as the 87% of evolutionary biologists being atheists goes, I agree with Brendan’s remarks on that. May I suggest also that if more evangelical Christians (who make up at least 30% of the U.S. population) were to go into evolutionary biology as a career, it would reduce the 87% figure (assuming it is correct).
There are two approaches to combatting atheistic hyper-darwinism (if I may coin a phrase). Approach #1 (which is that of people such as Collins and me) is to try to persuade people, including the community of evolutionary biologists, that the actual science of evolution doesn’t contradict the traditional Christian doctrines about God, providence, human nature, and so on. Approach #2 (which seems to be that of Mr. West) is to attempt the complete overthrow of Darwinian science. I admit that we who follow approach #1 are attempting the difficult. But those who follow approach #2 are attempting the utterly impossible. We who follow approach #1 are going up against much anti-religious prejudice and theological ignorance. Those who follow approach #2 are going up against massive scientific evidence. Ignorance and prejudice can be overcome by reason. Conclusive evidence cannot be..
June 25th, 2009 | 5:06 pm
I would like to ask some question of Deuce. I think it would help bring to light the real issues. (a) Would you say, Deuce, that stars, planets, mountains, oceans, rain and clouds, are creations of God? (b) Would you say that they are designed by God? (c) If you say they are designed by God, how do you understand that design to have occurred? (d) Does science have natural explanations [i.e. explanations that do not refer to or appeal to God and his activity] of how stars, planets, mountains, oceans, rain and clouds form? (e) Is it necessary or appropriate in the context of presenting the scientific theories of how such things form to refer to or appeal to God as designer and creator?
(I will give you my own answers to the yes/no questions: (a) yes, (b) yes, (d) yes, (e) no.
When I hear your answers, Deuce, I think we may be able to make some headway.
June 25th, 2009 | 8:58 pm
“I would like to ask some question of Deuce.”
Well, Deuce might like *answers* to his questions too, no?
June 26th, 2009 | 11:19 am
I appreciate Stephen Barr’s willingness to dialogue about these issues, which is unfortunately all too rare in discussions over Darwinian evolution and intelligent design. But I think he is adding to the confusion by insisting on an idiosyncratic definition of Darwinism that evolutionary biologists (as a whole) would reject. I further think Barr gives an unduly constricted view of the role of design in the Christian tradition that is hard to sustain. In an effort to move the conversation forward, I’d like to pose three questions to Dr. Barr:
1. Since you reject the Darwinian idea that evolution is undirected, why not make that disagreement perfectly clear and call your version of evolution “teleological evolution” or “directed evolution,” rather than trying to conflate your view with the terms “Darwinism” or “Darwinian evolution,” which only adds confusion to the discussion?
2. Since you indicate that you affirm that God knows and directs the outcomes of evolution, why don’t you and Francis Collins clearly repudiate the views of mainstream theistic evolution proponents like Ken Miller and George Coyne who DO promote undirected evolution?
3. If Darwinism is true and the development of life really is driven by random mutations that (in your view) display no discernible pattern and cannot lead to predictions, then in what sense do you believe that biology provides evidence of intelligent design?
An explanation of these questions, as well as my critique of Barr’s attempt to downplay the role of biological design in the Christian tradition, can be found at my post at Evolution News and Views, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/the_need_for_clear_thinking_ab.html
June 26th, 2009 | 1:17 pm
Mr. Barr, this is a superb analysis and I urge all to re-consider the concept of randomness. If I can pick a more down to earth example of randomness it would be meteorology.
Hurricanes form and move randomly. As I understand both Collins and Barr this does not mean that God is unaware of or can’t control the weather. We just see no evidence that He routinely does. Perhaps God did steer hurricane Katrina right into New Orleans and caused 2000 deaths. There is no evidence that the movement of the Hurricane was anything other than random and unguided–the same concept seen in biology.
That does not mean in any way to suggest that God’s providence does not abide on earth and in heaven.
It appears that people hold different concepts of randomness and its relationship to Divine providence.
Mr. West, if you are really interested in dialogue why doesn’t your website allow comments?
June 26th, 2009 | 2:12 pm
I will answer the three questions posed me by John West — as they are given here: I have not looked at the “explanation of these questions” to which he gives a link.
Answer to Question 1: I haven’t given any label to my views up to this point, nor have I heretofore given any thought to the terms “directed evolution” and “teleological evolution”. In response to your suggestion of these terms, I have now considered them. My initial reaction is that they would be confusing and unhelpful. Different people have very different ideas in mind when they speak of how God “directs” the world. There are also different notions of teleology. For example, Aristotle’s philosophy and biology were heavily teleological; but I gather that he did not believe in a God who created and designed the world. I do see teleology in the biological realm, but my ideas of teleology do not correspond to many teleological ideas I have heard proposed.
Here is what I think about terminology: There needs to be some word to describe the merely biological theory that life evolves and that it does so largely because of natural selection. The only word that exists at present to describe this biological idea is Darwinism. If we are going to use the word Darwinism to describe atheistic or reductionist philosophical views, then we will have to find some other agreed-upon word to describe the mere biological theory. At present, there is no such agreed-upon substitute word, or even any proposal or discussion of finding one. So we HAVE to use the word Darwinism to describe the mere biological theory — there is simply no other word available. Moreover, all dictionaries that I have been able to find agree in giving only ONE meaning to “Darwinism” — and I once spent an hour in a university library looking at dozens of dicyionaries, including biology and science dictionaries.
Given that this usage is fixed and probably unchangable, we must use some different word to describe the atheistic and reductionist philosophical ideas that are so often found in association with Darwinian biology. I propose “atheistic hyper-darwinism” or some similar term. The point is that we must use DIFFERENT terms to refer to the mere biology and the philosophical offshoots, if we are to avoid horrible confusion. There are lots of possible ways to refer to the philosophical offshoots. There is only one servicable term to denote the biology: Darwinism.
If one is going to insist on using “Darwinism”, to refer to atheist and reductionist views, one has the obligation to propose another term for the mere biology, in fairness to the many people who accept the mere biology but reject the atheism and reductionism.
One more point on the expression “directed evolution”. I would note first that not only life, but also the universe and stars etc,. evolve. Scientists talk of “cosmic evolution” and “stellar evolution”. So let me start by considering whether I would use “directed evolution” as a term in cosmology and astrophysics. I believe that the formation of stars and planets is part of and happens in accrdance with God’s eternal plan. He willed that there be a world with stars and planets, in order that life would have a place to dwell and a source of energy to sustain it. Every detail of how stars and planets form in general and how our Sun and earth formed in particular he foresaw and willed from all eternity. But I also think that the formation of stars and planets happens entirely in accordance with the laws of nature that God has ordained. A cloud of gas of sufficient size will form a star eventually, and will do so even if the particles in the gas are moving about in a random way, i.e. no special fine-tuning of the motions of the particles is required for a star to form. This an indisputable fact that can be demonstrated mathematically. Of course, to get a particular star would require particular motions of the particles. God willed from all eternity that THIS star, the Sun, would form and that it would have exactly this size, this chemical composition, and so on. And he therefore willed those antecedent events to happen that would lead to this particular result. But to understand the natural processes and mechanisms that lead to the formation of stars, including the sun, one does not have to refer to divine activity.
Like everyone else in the world, I refer to “stellar evolution”. To say that I believe in “directed stellar evolution” would be a bad idea, because it would give the false impression that I thought miraculous “interventions”, or special divine tuning of the motions of particles was needed — and I don’t.
So much for terminology.
Answer to Question 2: The simple reason why I do not “repudiate” the ideas of Kenneth Miller, is that I do not know what they are, except in a rather vague way. I have never had any reason to study his views. I do not regard myself as part of a “movement”. I have my own views, and only care whether they agree with the teachings of the Catholic faith and the scientific facts, NOT whether they agree with other writers on the subject. If, as you suggest, Kenneth Miller believes that there is anything about the future that God does not know (for example, what the outrcomes of evolution will be) , then he would be in contradiction to clearly taught articles of the Catholic faith — for example as taught “de fide” by the council called Vatican I. OF COURSE, I would repudiate that, because I accept the teachings of the Catholic faith, as I think everyone knows who reads what I write. (And, I should note that the Catholic teaching on this is thoroughly biblical. The First Vatican Council cited the Bible’s statement that “God reaches from end to end ordering all things sweetly”.) But, at present, I simply do not know what Miller’s views are on such questions with any precision. If I have to review one of Miller’s books, or for some other reason am called on to respond to something he has written or said, I will do so, after a careful study of precisely what it is that he has written or said.
Answer to Question 3. I would answer first by noting that the very same question could be asked about the development of the inanimate world. According to our best theories, early in the history of the universe matter was in a very disorganized form — quarks, gluons, photons, electrons, neutrinos, other kinds of leptons, etc., moving around in a random way. There were regions of higher and lower density, to be sure, but current theory says these “density perturbations” were themselves the result of random quantum fluctuations of certain fields. From all this, cosmic evolution produced galaxies, stars, planets. The chemical elements were synthesized. Yet, I see in all this a divine plan and purpose. God wanted life — human life most of all. That requires stars and planets. It requires a rich chemistry involving dozens of elements. Indeed, even more basically, it requires that there be three space dimensions of vast extent, and one time dimension of vast duration and with a directionality. To get all that, all sorts of things have to be built into the very deep structure of the laws of physics. God gave being to the universe, and he so conceived its laws and structure that it would unfold to give those thngs he wanted. So, I see design and purpose very clearly manifested in the world — but at the same time, I see no contradiction in saying that the motions of the particles that filled the universe early on were “random” in exactly the sense that physicists say they were. To say otherwise would, I think, betray either a crude understanding of the concept of randomness or a crude understanding of divine providence.
I would say much the same thing about biological development. I would also say that there is probably a great deal of directedness in biological evolution that is built into the chemistry and physics of the universe. This a point that Simon Conway-Morris makes. Evolution keeps finding the same “solutions” to problems. I used the analogy in one article in First Things of rivers that wander and meander “aimlessly” but nevertheless always find their way to the ocean. I also think that a great deal of teleology is built into the Darwinian idea itself, but people on both sides are too blinded by ideology and preconceptions to notice it. One can see that “purpose” comes in if one asks WHY natural selection selects some things and not others. WHY does natural selection tend to weed out mutations that harm vision for creatures that live above ground, but not those that live in the perpetual darkness of caves — so that some cave-dwelling species eventually go blind or even lose their eyes
altogether. The question cannot be answered without adverting to the BIOLOGICAL PURPOSE of eyes. There is teleology even in darwinian biology, if one looks in the right place. One need not look for it in the mutations being non-random. That is not the only way that teleology and purpose can exist in biology.
I would also note that no kind of biological,theory can account for man himself. We have spiritual souls. These cannot be accounted for by any biological process, whether Darwinian or otherwise. The soul is infused directly by God in each human being from the first (“Adam”) to the last. If that is so, as both faith and reason instruct me, then there is a mighty work of God that manifests design and purpose very directly: for the spiritual powers of intellect and will have a clear purpose, being directed toward what is true and good.
As this has gotten inordinately long, I will save other comments to a later round, if there is one.
June 26th, 2009 | 4:07 pm
Joseph:
We are indeed interested in dialogue. That’s why I’ve appeared at forums with Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson, Larry Arnhart and others, and that’s why I’ve been engaging in this exchange of views with Dr. Barr after he critiqued my initial article written for the Washington Post. That’s also why on our new Faith and Evolution site we have a section titled “Debates” where we highlight articles by those who disagree with us. You surely don’t mean to suggest that comments on blogsites are the only way of having an exchange?
As for why Discovery Institute doesn’t allow comments at Evolution News and Views: I suggest that you go read the comments posted at some of the main pro-Darwin blogs like Panda’s Thumb. If you do, you will see that the level of vituperation, flaming, and ad hominem attacks is such that it makes an open comment policy on our blog virtually impossible. If the comments received were as reasoned as the ones that predominate at First Things, there would be no problem. As it is, we are a small organization, and can’t afford to assign someone full-time to go through all of the insults and only post the reasoned comments.
June 26th, 2009 | 7:08 pm
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
Ken Miller, Catholic, endorses the Chruch’s teachings on evolution, just as Stephen Barr does, so your representation of Miller’s position does not appear accurate.
Miller specifically refers to Imago Dei, an International Theological Commsision document submitted to and approved by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger, the current Pope.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
A quote from a section of Imago Dei:
“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.”
This is a very good summary of the essential points of evolution. Do you agree with this version of evolution? Is the Catholic Church mistaken to assert that this version is compatible with Catholic belief? Are Stephen Barr, and Ken Miller–and the current Pope–theologically or scientifically misguided?
Miller, again, quoting from Imago Dei:
“More important, the same document makes a critical statement on how we should interpret scientific studies of the complexity of life: “whether the available data support inferences of design or chance . . cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence.”
Right there, in plain view, is the essence of compatibility between evolution and Catholic theology. “Contingency in the created order,” the very essence of evolution, is not at all incompatible with the will of God. The official Church document reemphasizes this point by stating that “even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation.” And evolution, as Stephen Jay Gould emphasized brilliantly in his writings, is truly a contingent natural process.
The concerns of Pope Benedict, as expressed in his earlier writings and in his coronation homily, are not with evolution per se, but with how evolution is to be understood in our modern world. Biological evolution fits neatly into a traditional Catholic understanding of how contingent natural processes can be seen as part of God’s plan, while “evolutionist” philosophies that deny the Divine do not. Three Popes, beginning with Pius XII, have made this abundantly clear.”
For those not familair with the debate, Miller is the co-author of the most widely used high school textbook in the U.S., imaginitvely called “Biology” and a persuasive expert at the Kitzmiller trial.
June 27th, 2009 | 5:08 am
Joseph,
Yes, Miller endorses the “Chruch’s teachings on evolution”, but he undestands “Church’s teaching” very special way. Miller is some kind deist, as he has stated in his book “Finding Darwin’s God” , and he believes that Catholic Church also is teaching deism, without any actual causal intervation of God during history. He denies very many of the Church’s teachings, including virgin birth, allknowing God, etc. It would be interesting to hear, if he believes in historical resurrection of Jesus, or not. I have not ever heard he saying that he believes in it in the historical meaning.
“When I confronted my two Catholic colleagues [Miller and another] on the panel with the apparent miracle of the virgin birth and asked how they could reconcile this with basic biology, I was ultimately told that perhaps this biblical claim merely meant to emphasize what an important event the birth was. Neither came to the explicit defense of what is undeniably one of the central tenets of Catholic theology.”
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB124597314928257169-lMyQjAxMDI5NDI1NjkyNzYzWj.html
“This is a very good summary of the essential points of evolution. Do you agree with this version of evolution? Is the Catholic Church mistaken to assert that this version is compatible with Catholic belief? Are Stephen Barr, and Ken Miller–and the current Pope–theologically or scientifically misguided?”
Yes. Document summarizes very well the Catholic understanding of evolution. Barr and current Pope are not theologically misguided. But Miller is not in their group. Document sais VERY CLEARLY that catholic church supports some versions of evolution, but neo-Darwinian, not guided versions of evolution ARE “INCOMPATIBLE WITH CATHOLIC FAITH”. From document:
” In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”
June 28th, 2009 | 10:16 am
Hi, Steve,
a & b) Yes, I would say that stars etc are created and designed by God.
c) I don’t understand how Providence works, but in a nutshell, God intends are foreordains everything that happens in the universe, and not only foreordains it, but perpetually upholds it. While things that happen may *seem* random (as in unplanned) to us, that’s only because we can’t see the grand plan, and in fact they really aren’t.
d) Yes, we have “natural” explanations for how stars etc form, although to my knowledge, those explanations don’t involve randomness (as in unplannedness) as an *explanatory* component.
e) No, it’s not appropriate, from a scientific perspective, to refer to God as the Creator of those things. In fact, it’s not appropriate to talk about their designedness at all, in my opinion.
=====================
Now, all that said, let me explain why I believe that Darwinian theory is in a different boat from our theories of how stars and other heavenly bodies form, and why the word “random,” in evolutionary biology, necessarily differs from the meaning of the word in other sciences such as physics.
Darwinian theory fundamentally differs from other sciences both in 1) the sense in which “random” is used, and 2) in terms of what types of things the theory is trying to explain.
In most sciences, and in every day life, “random” is used in a descriptive manner, not in an explanatory manner.
For instance, if I throw a die 100 times, and observe a roughly even distribution of numbers, I may describe the results as “random”. However, that doesn’t imply anything about whether the results were intended by God. In fact, I’m not explaining the causes at all. I am merely *describing* the results that I see before me, not explaining the causes of those results (which are too numerous and complex for me to observe).
In Darwinian theory, this is reversed. The *results* that we see (life, and particularly advanced life) don’t look random. They look designed. It’s the causes, which we can’t observe (because they happened before we even existed), that Darwinian theory describes as “random”. Darwinian theory says “Life may look designed and non-random, but the causes actually are random.” The randomness in Darwinian theory is explanatory, not descriptive. This sets it apart from other scientific theories (and, imo, actually makes is a philosophical theory, rather than a properly scientific one).
Darwinian theory also differs from other theories in terms of what it is trying to explain. In physics, we are generally trying to explain various regularities and patterns. For instance, in explaining how stars form, we are generally trying to explain such things as their chemical makeup, why they are clustered together in galaxies, etc, etc.
Darwin, on the other hand, was specifically trying to explain why life looks designed, and he tried to give an explanation that rendered that design illusory (ie, not actually the product of design). That’s why, for instance, he named his mechanism “natural selection“. Selection is usually an intentional (ie design) term. He was trying to offer a substitute designer – something that could create the appearance of intent without actual intentionality.
I agree that it’s not appropriate to invoke God as designer in science proper. However, I don’t believe that this applies when the very thing you are trying to explain is why something looks designed. In that case, ruling the design explanation out is a exercise in naturalistic philosophy, not science.
I said above that it’s not appropriate for science to address the topic of designedness at all. However, it is Darwinism, not its critics, that (illegitimately, in my opinion) injected the topic into science in the first place, although it did it in order to explain it away. And that, in turn, is why we have all these textbooks and research papers presenting atheistic philosophical claims as if they were science.
June 28th, 2009 | 10:38 pm
Hi, Deuce. Just one comment. The “randomness” of genetic mutations posited by neo-Darwinism is NOT an explanatory component of the theory. It is really a statement that one does NOT need NON-randomness in the mutations for explanatory purposes. The explanatory component of Darwinism is to be found in the mechanism of natural selection. The random mutations just give something for natural selection to work on. It is, so the speak, the raw material. The shaping of that material is done by the selection.
June 29th, 2009 | 12:13 pm
Hi, Steve,
I think that random mutation and natural selection are *both* necessary explanatory components of the theory. The adjective “random” wouldn’t be necessary if the mutations weren’t explanatory. That qualifier is important to the explanatory framework of the theory.
What Darwin was trying to explain, and the question the theory is meant to answer, is “How could the appearance of intendedness have been achieved without life actually having been intended?”
If the mutations were actually intended rather than random, or if the selection were actual selection rather than “natural” (which, in the mechanistic philosophy is basically a synonym for “lacking intentionality”) selection, the explanatory framework of the theory is undermined, and it fails to explain what it was meant to explain.
Keep in mind, when the theory states that mutations are “random”, it cannot simply mean that they appear or seem random. They don’t *seem* like anything, because they happened before we were here to observe them and are lost to the past. The theory can only be trying to say that they *are* random.
By the way, this brings me to one rather tricky aspect of Darwin’s theory: It takes on a subtly different meaning when being used in an experimental sense, versus when it is being used in a historical sense to account for the appearance of design in general.
When we are observing evolution in a test tube experiment, for instance, we may describe the mutations as “random” without it having any metaphysical meaning. It simply means that there are no correlations that we can observe.
Likewise, when observing animal populations in real-time, we may note that they change as a result of environmental pressures, at least partly because certain genotypes are better suited to those pressures, and end up surviving in greater numbers. We might even use “natural selection” to describe this, without it containing any philosophical baggage concerning whether or not those environmental pressures were intended by God.
However, when the theory is used as a general purpose historical explanation for the appearance of design, or intent, in life, both “random” and “natural” take on the meaning of “unintended”.
Note also that this is the primary manner in which Darwin meant them. It was no big revelation that animals exhibit variations that are uncorrelated to us, or that their phenotypes can be changed by environmental pressures. After all, these items of knowledge are the entire basis of animal breeding, which creates desired phenotypes by strictly controlling the environments in which the animals live and reproduce.
Darwin’s big contribution was to suggest that these things could, in a total lack of intention of telos, account for the omnipresent appearance of intendedness in life.
It’s a clever little explanation (though, I believe, it is ultimately incoherent – in a nutshell because it tries to both explain and explain away design simultaneously). However, I don’t believe that something being clever and having explanatory content automatically renders it scientific rather than philosophical. The various multiverse theories proposed to deal with the Anthropic Principle are also clever and explanatory, but few people try to pretend that they are science. There’s simply no reasonable way we can empirically tell whether variations and environmental pressures are intended or not.
June 29th, 2009 | 1:21 pm
I’d actually like to qualify the end of my last post. I said:
“There’s simply no reasonable way we can empirically tell whether variations and environmental pressures are intended or not.”
I think that’s technically incorrect. Inferring intent from the appearance of design *is* an empirical inference (since it derives from observation of contingent things). However, I don’t think it’s properly scientific, because there’s no way to really quantify it, record data about it in the way that is usually done for scientific research, etc. Science doesn’t exhaust the empirical.
So, I should have said that there is simply no reasonable way that we can scientifically quantify the question of whether or not variations and environmental pressures are intended.
July 9th, 2009 | 4:30 pm
I have posted my response to Dr. Barr’s answers to my questions on Evolution News and Views:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/clarity_and_confusion_stephen.html
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact