Re: design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)

From: Don Winterstein <>
Date: Thu Jun 11 2009 - 02:04:48 EDT

Darwinists (your usage) assert that the world is nothing more than what science in principle can discover about it. In other words, there is no need to distinguish between metaphysical and methodological naturalism because there's nothing the methods of science cannot in principle discover: To say the methods of science were naturalistic would be superfluous, because everything is naturalistic. TE distinguishes between the two because it recognizes that there is more to the world than what science can discover, and making the distinction between metaphysical and methodological is simply how TE asserts that science cannot discover certain important things even in principle.

Darwin was scientifically and theologically sophisticated enough to realize that science could not rule out the existence or even the activity of God, so down deep he must have known that evolution might have depended upon God but that he nevertheless deliberately constrained his explanation of evolution to be independent of God. If so, then Darwin was not a true Darwinist but simply a methodological naturalist.

I see little practical difference between the TE position and your "useful distinction" (below). "Darwinism" holds to both methodological and metaphysical naturalism, while "evolution" limits itself to methodological naturalism. "Evolution" is the elucidation of the process uncovered by the methods of naturalism. The TE formulation simply goes a bit farther by implying that God has acted on evolution in unspecified ways.


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Cameron Wybrow<>
  To: asa<>
  Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:15 PM
  Subject: Re: design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)

  Dave Siemens may choose not to read this post, but for others who might be interested, I would point out some problems with his reply to Schwarzwald:

  DS: "You've blown the game by noting "guided and unguided." That's metaphysical. The proper stance is that science cannot speak to the matter. Murray's later post makes the same error. TE does not say that development is unguided, it merely recognizes that the decision is not within the scope of the empirical study of nature."

  Regarding the notion of divine guidance in evolution, TE speaks with many voices, and more often than not very unclearly. However, classical Darwinism is clear, and does say, or imply, that evolutionary development is unguided. The whole point of Darwin's theory was to account for the existence of species in terms of variation and natural selection, which are represented in his argument as unguided, even if he doesn't regularly use the word. Why do I say this? Evolution must be unguided, because it is conceived by Darwin as driven by impersonal natural laws and processes, which, like gravity, magnetism, and so on, have no intentionality, and cannot aim for any end in particular cases. Darwin understood this as a principle required by all truly scientific explanation -- universal laws, not particular volitions or designs, must be used to explain natural events. Mars is not trying to orbit the sun, nor is any angel pushing Mars around the sun. Mars is driven around the sun by a blind natural necessity. Darwin sought explanations of that sort for the origin of species. And such explanations rule out guidance. (They don't rule out God as the author of the laws which make Mars orbit the sun, or which allow species to evolve; but they rule out local guidance by God in particular cases of planetary motion or evolutionary change.)

  Now one might say that TE agrees with Darwin on this point. Yes, but there is a crucial difference. Darwin did not adopt the TE gimmickery of separating "metaphysical naturalism" from "methodological naturalism"; i.e., he did *not* think that "naturalism" (to use the jargon that people here use, though like David Campbell I don't like it much) was merely a heuristic fiction, convenient for the investigation of nature, which made no claims about the way nature "really" operated. He thought that "naturalism" was the right way to approach nature because he thought that nature actually operated exclusively through universal natural laws. He thought that the "nature" uncovered by science (good science, that is) was nature itself.

  So in fact Darwin did hold one "metaphysical" belief -- the belief that nature is in fact driven by universal laws, and was in principle entirely explicable by them. But it was *not* a second "metaphysical" belief on his part that there was no local guidance or design in the evolutionary process. Rather, it was (at least in the context of the 19th-century physics that Darwin knew) a logical implication of the first. Once Laplacian-style laws are in force, no local guidance by the author of those laws -- barring a miraculous suspension of them -- is possible. Darwin was therefore completely logical -- in his day -- to believe that evolution was *in reality* unguided, and driven entirely by a combination of blind necessity and chance. I therefore find that Dawkins and Coyne are completely faithful interpreters of Darwin in their rejection of guidance with regard to the evolutionary process. It is the TEs who are unfaithful to Darwin in claiming that his rejection of guidance is a gratuitous metaphysical addition to the "science" part of his theory, and that Darwinism is compatible with the notion of guidance.

  Of course, today it can be argued that quantum theory and/or chaos theory provide theoretical room, not available to Darwin, for local guidance within a framework of impersonal law. I don't reject that suggestion out of hand, as a possible means for providing for divine guidance within an orderly nature. In fact, it ultimately undermines Darwin's anti-teleological intentions, which is fine with me. And it can easily be harmonized with the possibility of design detection, because there is no difference in the procedures for design detection, whether the patterns in living creatures are caused by the action of a big glowing finger of God that everyone can see, or by invisible quantum shifts. The question is only whether the patterns are of such a nature that the design inference is warranted.

  There is, of course, an easy way for Dave Siemens out of all my objections here. Instead of trying to prove that Darwin's "metaphysics" can be separated from his "science" (which they can't be, without grave consequences for the strength of Darwinian theory), he could simply accept my useful distinction between "evolution" (understood as a neutral name for an inferred *process*, with no assumptions made about whether the process is guided or unguided), and "Darwinism" (which is the view, held by true Darwinists, -- Darwin, Huxley, Simpson, Coyne, Mayr, Gould, Dawkins, etc. -- that evolution is inherently unguided). He could agree with me that "Darwinian evolution" (in its pure, unadulterated form) is incompatible with Christian theology, while insisting that evolution itself, as a process, may involve intelligent input, may be guided (*really* guided, I mean) and therefore may be compatible with Christian theology. Many people in the ID camp would agree with him if he were to say that.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: dfsiemensjr<>
    Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:54 PM
    Subject: Re: design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)

    You've blown the game by noting "guided and unguided." That's metaphysical. The proper stance is that science cannot speak to the matter. Murray's later post makes the same error. TE does not say that development is unguided, it merely recognizes that the decision is not within the scope of the empirical study of nature.

    I recall a story that dates to the Piltdown matter. Many pieces of flint discovered in early deposits were claimed to be tools until one of the group brought in a bag of nodules, placed the bag on the floor and jumped on it. Then he showed that the broken pieces were like those touted as tools. Discovering patterns!
    Dave (ASA)

    On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 18:04:20 -0400 Schwarzwald <<>> writes:
      Heya Dave,

      In defense of Cameron, I don't think he's just "making up" much of anything here. If anything, he's taking metaphysics seriously - and there really is an underlying metaphysical basis to science and the conclusions we draw from it, however restrained and however unspoken. I'd also agree it's very important to recognize the metaphysics that are in play both in terms of the rock-bottom fundamentals (What metaphysical perspectives are needed to do science) and the extraneous (what sort of metaphysical perspectives are often present in science news / education / etc, but are tacked on and are themselves unscientific.)

      While I have criticisms of ID and don't think it itself is scientific, I also agree with some of what Cameron is saying here. Not just about the importance of recognizing the metaphysical roots and debates over "cause" (Not just final causes, mind you, but criticisms like Hume's), but about how the ID people aren't the only ones engaging in some extraneous metaphysics. Why is it a threat to science itself when Behe or Dembski write books speculating about the possibility of design being detected in nature -- but when Stephen Weinberg asserts that science has shown nature to be comprised of 'cold, pitiless indifference', when Victor Stenger writes a book titled "God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist", when countless atheists present evolutionary development as scientific proof that God wasa not involved, etc... well, THAT is just some private individuals presenting their personal opinions. Claim to detect design in nature, and you're quite possibly a malicious person, intentionally trying to destroy science itself. Claim that science shows there is no God, and you're merely opinionated.

      I absolutely endorse being even-handed about 'metaphysics' in science. I do have some disagreements with Cameron, though - unless I have him wrong, he seems to think that examining possibilities of chemical evolution for the first cell takes on an unavoidable metaphysical suggestion of 'this was unguided'. I'd see it differently - if anything it illustrates one way a Creator could have accomplished what He wanted to accomplish. I'd also disagree that science "purports to be able to explain the *origin* of natural entities" - or at least that science properly understood cannot do this. Not without tainting it with a strong dosage of metaphysics.

      In this vein, let me suggest a fun way to think about these questions: If I develop a program that simulates evolutionary development, and I illustrate how by changing certain variables, starting data, etc, I'm capable of influencing and directing how the evolution unfolds (In other words, I'm able to guide and direct the evolution towards certain pathways and goals), would that be evidence of intelligent design? If we manage to create synthetic life in a laboratory from scratch, would that be evidence of intelligent design? If I manage to create a simulation of a universe - no matter how small, no matter how limited - is that evidence of intelligent design? If we find a way to create another universe in a laboratory, would that be evidence of intelligent design? Would "humans will find a way to create life in a laboratory" an ID prediction?

      Either way, this I have great sympathies with what Cameron is saying here - both about the importance (and prevalence) of metaphysics in science, as well as the uneven treatment of ID (or even 'theistic') perspectives compared to others.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jun 11 02:05:32 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 11 2009 - 02:05:32 EDT