Re: [asa] BioLogos - Bad Theology?

From: Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu May 28 2009 - 18:23:40 EDT

Terry:

Testing me, are you?

Well, assuming that you want the coin tosses treated as independent events,
and assuming a fair coin with a probability of 1/2 for each of heads and
tails, the probability is exactly the same on any single flip. So, if we
are talking about the fifth coin flip in isolation, the fact that four heads
have come up previously is irrelevant. The probability of a head at flip 5
is still 1/2. And that would be the case even if we knew that there had
been a million consecutive heads previously.

But that isn't the whole story. Probability theorists still can ask the
question: in advance of flipping any coins, what is the probability of
flipping five heads in a row? This is not the same as asking what is the
probability of the fifth coin being a head, given that you already have four
heads. You are in a different position as knower in each case.

The probability of flipping five heads in a row, given no knowledge of any
of the coin flips in advance, is (1/2)^5, or 1 in 32.

The probability of flipping 64 heads in a row, given no knowledge of any of
the coin flips in advance, is (1/2)^64, or 1 in a number larger than the
number of all the grains of rice in China, according to the old legend about
the sage and the chessboard.

It is the latter sort of probability, the probability of achieving a given
sequence, that is relevant in the ID-Darwinism debate. Evolution, if it is
to occur by wholly Darwinian means, is limited by natural selection
constraints (not to mention genetic and physiological constraints) to a
certain set of sequences. The mutations can't occur in just any old order.
To make a crude application from coin-flipping to mutations (which is of
course inadequate), of all the 32 possible sequences of heads and tails, it
might be that only the sequences HTTTH and HTTHT could produce a bacterial
flagellum -- all the other sequences either producing no effect or the wrong
effect or producing dead bacteria -- so that there would be only a 1/16
probability that the flagellum could be produced by chance. But of course
the numbers we are talking about are many orders of magnitude larger than
that.

Of course the application of probability theory to biological design can be
and has been questioned. I have no problem with genuine, non-mean-spirited
criticisms of the use of probability theory in ID (and by the way, Terry, I
thought your essay in *PEC* maintained an admirable polite tone). But
according to some calculations, the numbers one comes up with when one tries
to explain the origin of the first cell by chance (or, mutatis mutandis, the
origin of a flagellum or some other complex system from chance) are so
astoundingly large that the hypothesis amounts to an expression of religious
faith in the power of chance. And why should scientists have a religious
faith in the power of chance? Why is faith in the power of chance
"scientific", whereas discussion of a designer (which on the face of things
is the more rational answer to the question how life originated)
"unscientific"? The insistence that *any explanation, no matter how
improbable or how lacking in empirical evidence, is better than a design
explanation*, puts "origins scientists" in the odd position of having to be
irrational in order to prove that they are scientific. Odd, don't you
think?

Anyhow, to come back to the question I asked after points 7 and 8 of the
post to which you refer, I am interested in hearing your view on whether Ted
Davis has correctly defined TE, and on whether ID and TE are compatible, if
Ted Davis's definition is employed. And I am interested in hearing whether
you agree with me that there is zone of overlap between some versions of ID
and some versions of TE. I am interested in establishing a common front
against Dawkins etc. which allows ID and TE people to work together based on
their agreements, but some TEs seem determined to draw attention as much as
possible to disagreements between ID and TE, and seem to find ID almost as
objectionable as the position of Dawkins. What I like about Ted Davis's
definition is that it allows individual ID and TE people to disagree with
each other over various questions, but does not require them to do so.
Ted's definition of TE is a non-polarizing definition. I wish more TEs
would clearly embrace it.

Cameron.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] BioLogos - Bad Theology?

> Cameron,
>
> A simple statistics question for you...
>
> In a coin flipping experiment, if you flip a coin four times and it turns
> up heads each time, what is the chance of getting heads on the next flip?
>
> Much more to respond to in your post--but I'd like to start to address
> points 4-6 with this question. I'm quite intrigued by your Calvin
> questions--I'll see what I can come up with.
>
> TG
>
> On May 27, 2009, at 11:44 PM, Cameron Wybrow wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Terry:
>>
>> Thank your for your thoughtful reply. I cannot do justice to all the
>> ideas expressed in it, and so will pick out a few.
>>
>> 1. It's my understanding that at least a couple of people here, namely
>> Ted Davis and George Murphy, would agree with you
>> "that an event can be seemingly by chance, yet still be under God's
>> control and determination". I think they would explain this in terms of
>> quantum indeterminacy, i.e., that since there is indeterminacy within
>> the laws of nature, there would be no apparent violation of those laws
>> in the minute changes by which God might guide evolution. God's
>> interventions would be indistinguishable from chance events.
>>
>> 2. This might well be the way things work; I have no objection to the
>> notion that God guides evolution, and if he has to be "snuck in"
>> somewhere so as to guide evolution without flagrantly upsetting the
>> normal paths of nature, I suppose "quantum indeterminacy" is as good a
>> way as any.
>>
>> 3. However, I think that in practice, we never are in the position of
>> witnessing evolutionary "events" as single items. Rather, we look at a
>> string of fossil finds from which we infer a string of evolutionary
>> events stretching over thousands or millions or tens of millions of
>> years. In this situation, the question whether a given mutation was
>> caused by God or chance is not really a useful question. It is the
>> overall direction of a series of mutations that is important.
>>
>> 4. So for example, let's say science could determine what it is
>> currently nowhere near able to determine, e.g., that it would take 1,000
>> mutations to turn a lizard into a bird, with those mutations having to
>> occur in a certain sequence in order for each of the intermediate forms
>> to be viable in terms of natural selection. And let's say that George
>> and Ted are right in their claim that, even if we had a time machine and
>> could bring the live specimens to our era, so that we had them in front
>> of us at exactly the point at which the mutations occurred, science
>> could say nothing about the ultimate cause of any of those 1,000
>> individual mutations. We could not therefore tell whether God or chance
>> was responsible for any of them. Yet the question still arises: can
>> the *sequence* tell us something that any individual mutation cannot?
>>
>> 5. Here is where intelligent design comes in. From an ID point of
>> view, while any single mutation has a relatively large probability, the
>> sequence as a whole has an extremely small probability. So, while the
>> probability of a mutation affecting the iris or the lung etc. cannot
>> help us to decide between God and chance, the probability that a certain
>> mutation affecting the iris would be followed by a certain mutation
>> affecting the lung, and that these two mutations would be followed by a
>> certain mutation affecting the brain centres that control the iris and
>> the lung, and that all of these would be followed by a certain mutation
>> affecting the development of feathers and then followed by another
>> mutation which enabled the brain to co-ordinate the proto-feathers with
>> other parts of the organism, etc. -- that combined probability might
>> help us to decide between God or chance. (If you substitute alien
>> biologists for God, the reasoning is the same, so one could generalize
>> that to "intelligence or chance". But since we are usually discussing
>> Christian theology here, I'll use "God".)
>>
>> 6. If you treat each of the mutations as independent events, as neo-
>> Darwinism generally does, then a thousand-step string of mutations would
>> of course have a very low probability. Let's say you come up with a
>> figure of 1 in 10^200 for the probability of the string. Then let's say
>> that there might be 100 possible alternate sequences, of roughly equal
>> probability with the first, that could have turned a lizard into a bird
>> in a way compatible with natural selection requirements. The 100
>> possible sequences, 10^2, are a drop in the bucket, reducing the
>> colossal number by only a tiny amount. So you still have an incredibly
>> improbable event. And from this the design inference proceeds.
>>
>> 7. The main point I am trying to make here is not about how ID
>> argumentation works, which I'm sure you know already. Nor is my point
>> to prove that design inferences are "scientific", or that design
>> inferences are sound. The point I am making is a theological one, i.e.,
>> that the validity or invalidity of design inferences is a separate
>> question from the question of how God acts to guide evolution. One
>> could believe that God guides evolution exactly as Ted Davis and George
>> Murphy have postulated, i.e., one could be a theistic evolutionist; yet
>> one could still argue for the validity of the design inference. That
>> is, one could be a TE and an ID proponent at the same time. TE and ID
>> are not mutually exclusive positions.
>>
>> 8. Of course, individual versions of TE and individual versions of ID
>> might clash; that we all know from experience. But there is nothing
>> inherent in the definitions of TE (as defined the other day by Ted
>> Davis) and ID (understood as a theory of design detection) that prevents
>> them from being combined. Indeed, I am not sure how to describe Michael
>> Behe's position other than as a combination of ID and TE.
>>
>> Terry, would you agree with my line of thought thus far?
>>
>> As for your historical point about American thinkers, I am hesitant to
>> talk about authors I haven't read, such as Asa Gray, Hodge, etc. Ted
>> would be the better person to comment on your remarks there.
>>
>> I agree with you that Calvinist theology in some respects does better
>> justice to parts of the Bible than do some other theologies, but I want
>> to reserve a lengthy discussion of Calvinism for later. For now, I have
>> some questions for you about Calvin's theology. Do you know where the
>> passage is in which Calvin called Lucretius a "dog" or "filthy dog"? I
>> would be interested in reading the context, if there is any, for
>> Calvin's remark. Darwinism is in many ways a modern form of Lucretian
>> thinking, translated into the biological idiom, and Calvin's comments on
>> Lucretius (or other Epicureans) might give us an idea how he would have
>> reacted to Darwin. Also I would be interested in references to other
>> passages where Calvin speaks directly about nature, natural laws, etc.
>> Also if he makes any references to Islamic occasionalist doctrines, and
>> distinguishes his account of God's action and of nature from that of
>> those Islamic theologians.
>>
>> Cameron.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry M. Gray"
>> <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu
>> >
>> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] BioLogos - Bad Theology?
>>
>>
>>> Cameron,
>>>
>>> I'm delighted to see the conversation take this direction. I was
>>> mentally composing a message to address several of these points.
>>>
>>> As you note, the Calvinist perspective on how God is involved with the
>>> created order allows for some considerations that have seemed off the
>>> table here; namely, that an event can be seemingly by chance, yet
>>> still be under God's control and determination. I discuss some of this
>>> in my on-line paper at http://www.asa3.org/gray/ GrayASA2003OnHodge.html
>>> You also see the idea in the Westminster Confession of Faith III, 1
>>>
>>> 1. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of
>>> his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to
>>> pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is
>>> violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or
>>> contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
>>>
>>> and V, 2
>>>
>>> 2. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the
>>> first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet,
>>> by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out, according to the
>>> nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
>>>
>>> Proverbs 16:33 captures the idea "The lot is cast into the lap, but
>>> its every decision is from the LORD."
>>>
>>> The point is that from a creaturely perspective there can be random
>>> events. A scientific analysis would result the conclusion that such
>>> events were undirected and unplanned, i.e. consistent with the
>>> Darwinian claim. However, from God's perspective they are planned,
>>> directed, purposed, etc. It's only when you push the notion of random
>>> and undirected and unplanned into God's perspective do we run into
>>> trouble. Of course, this is Darwin's original error and the error
>>> (from a Calvinist's perspective) committed by atheist and theist
>>> critic of Darwinism.
>>>
>>> Another way of saying this is that God is the designer of things that
>>> are the consequence of what to us are random processes.
>>>
>>> So, how does this work? What does this mean for God's involvement in
>>> creation? I personally hold to a radical interventionist model. I
>>> think this is what scripture and the Reformed confessions teach. God
>>> is involved via sustenance and concursus with every creaturely act. I
>>> don't know the details. I'm not sure we can know, it may well be part
>>> of what it means to be God (which we're not). I don't think scripture
>>> tells us. As Hodge says (cited in my on-line paper), that's all we
>>> need to know. Notice from the WCF citations above that holding this
>>> radical interventionist model does not deny the authenticity of
>>> creaturely actions or the reality of other causes than God. How can
>>> this be you may ask? I don't know. We affirm all the scripture
>>> affirms, which is all these things even if we can reason how they all
>>> fit together. We can confidently say that God knows how they all fit
>>> together.
>>>
>>> This, I think, is the fundamental theological problem in Darwin. He
>>> rejected a God who was in all the details, largely, I think, for
>>> reasons relating to theodicy. He, like many theologians in his day
>>> (and many in our day) rejected the Calvinist perspective because he
>>> couldn't reconcile his notion of the goodness of God with "nature red
>>> in tooth and claw". Interestingly, this seems to be the main point of
>>> Ayala's "Darwin's Gift". Since God is not directly involved any more
>>> he his relieved of any responsibility for the perceived gruesomeness
>>> of the biological world.
>>>
>>> So, Darwin rejects the Calvinist vision of the world that God directs
>>> everything that happens, even in random events, i.e. he pushes his
>>> scientific/creaturely notions of randomness into God's perspective.
>>> This is where I think that Hodge's critique of Darwin is
>>> misunderstood. Hodge cannot conceive of a world where there are random
>>> events outside of God's determination in both His will and His
>>> governance. If such events exist then God doesn't--if this is Darwin's
>>> view then it's atheism. Notice that even Hodge is willing to go to the
>>> "Darwinism" of Asa Gray (although he is clear about not wanting to
>>> call Gray a Darwinian) and Hodge's successor at Princeton, B.B.
>>> Warfield, once called himself a "Darwinian of the purest water".
>>>
>>> Gray and Warfield understood that Darwin had committed the error of
>>> confusing categories when comparing the divine purpose with what's
>>> observed from the creaturely realm. So, for them, they could affirm
>>> Darwinism the way Darwin understood it in the creaturely realm as long
>>> as you understood that you were making no claims for God's involvement
>>> (or not). I think that this is why the 19th and early 20th century
>>> Calvinists had less problem with science in general and evolution in
>>> particular than with many of the other fundamentalists. A full blown
>>> scientific description in terms of natural causes is not the least bit
>>> incompatible with a divine causation, even at the detail of quarks,
>>> protons, and molecules.
>>>
>>> Frankly, I think this same error is committed by Falk, Collins, and
>>> Lamoureux. So it's somewhat providential that my response to Cameron
>>> comes under this subject line. Of course, I commend all three for
>>> tackling this difficult subject and being bold enough to affirm the
>>> compatibility of their Christian faith and their understanding of the
>>> science. But they do not follow my Calvinist line here. In fact, at
>>> least Collins and Falk make much of how God's working through the
>>> evolutionary process helps solve theodicy to some degree. (A
>>> commitment to libertarian free will also is part of the picture, which
>>> explains, in part, a certain friendliness toward open theism.) But, in
>>> my opinion, they give away the store. If the outcome of a series of
>>> events is dependent of the prior events then the prior events must be
>>> as much under God's control as the end event. As you noted, Cameron,
>>> scripture seems to go this direction much more than many contemporary
>>> folk want to go.
>>>
>>> This leads to another thread of Cameron's on the definition of theist
>>> evolution. I consider the view described above to be a version of
>>> theistic evolution. On my view, chemistry is theistic chemistry,
>>> physics is theistic physics, etc. This does not necessarily mean that
>>> there are no miraculous interventions. As I've said many times, I
>>> believe that scripture teaches a special creation of human beings,
>>> particularly of the human soul. So while I affirm the possibility of
>>> evolutionary processes that lead to the biological form of human
>>> beings, human beings, body AND soul, do not derive from an
>>> evolutionary process. While this aspect of human creation is not
>>> evolutionistic, it does not, in my opinion, disqualify me from being a
>>> theistic evolutionist.
>>>
>>> In this view, then, everything is intelligently designed if we regard
>>> God as an intelligent agent. Whether something has design that is
>>> detected using the various tools that detect design (SETI, forensics,
>>> archaeology, etc.) is another question. I remain open to the
>>> possibility but have yet to be convinced that any of the examples
>>> pointed to are real (and this from the perspective of a professional
>>> biologist/biochemist for whatever that's worth). See my discussion of
>>> the general matter written now over 15 years ago at
>>> http://www.asa3.org/evolution/irred_compl.html While I can't give the
>>> details that Cameron (following Behe) demands, the broad outlines of
>>> the evolution many irreducibly complex systems are present to the
>>> point that I find them highly credible.
>>>
>>> I wanted to refer to one other Cameron's posts in appreciate. While I
>>> have always appreciated George Murphy's approach in general and firmly
>>> advocate a Christ and cross-centered approach to theology myself, I
>>> have always felt that his perspective was used to undermine other
>>> perspectives. The thread on "Archimedes point" produced an "aha"
>>> moment for me. Without denying the importance of George's approach, I
>>> would probably advocate a more multi- perspective approach. I find this
>>> in some of John Frame's writings and in traditional Reformed theology.
>>>
>>> Finally, I think that it's worth saying, especially in light of a
>>> recent post where seem to be getting our theology from Bruce Almighty,
>>> that much of the resistance to the Calvinistic perspective comes from
>>> a commitment to libertarian rather than compatibilist free will. While
>>> Calvinist acknowledge creaturely free will (see the citations above
>>> from the Westminster Confession), they deny that it is inconsistent
>>> with God's decree and sovereignty over all things. The Confession says
>>> that "nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures" while
>>> affirming God's foreordination (not just foreknowledge) of whatever
>>> comes to pass. Non-Calvinists deny that such a thing is possible and
>>> that compatibilist free will is not free will at all (despite a long
>>> intellectual history that includes Calvinists and various
>>> deterministic philosophies).
>>>
>>> As an interesting aside, the Calvinistic perspective also lets us have
>>> a fully human and a fully divine Scripture. Warfield and A. A. Hodge
>>> advocate this in their view of inspiration. Their's is no dictation
>>> theory, but their view has God providentially forming the writer's of
>>> scripture, their backgrounds, context, circumstances, thoughts, etc.
>>> so that what they write is exactly what He want written and declared
>>> to be His Word. This rejection of the Calvinistic perspective is part
>>> of what leads Clark Pinnock in "The Scripture Principle" to abandon
>>> inerrancy. His more recent moves toward open theism is just part of a
>>> consistent rejection of Calvinism.
>>>
>>> TG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________
>>> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
>>> Computer Support Scientist
>>> Chemistry Department
>>> Colorado State University
>>> Fort Collins, CO 80523
>>> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
> ________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department
> Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, CO 80523
> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 28 18:24:17 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 28 2009 - 18:24:17 EDT