Suzan Mazur, author of The Origin of Life Circus, interviews British philosopher of biology (U Exeter) John Dupré, on the upcoming Royal Society meeting, New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives, at Huffington Post:
Since the upcoming Royal Society meeting on evolution paradigm shift is a public one, one of its organizers — British philosopher John Dupré — recently agreed to answer some of my questions about the event. This in itself is progress in science, considering the silly secrecy that surrounded “the Altenberg 16” Extended Synthesis conference of 2008 that two years later would produce a book timidly announcing:
“The modification and additions to the Modern Synthesis presented in this volume are combined under the term Extended Synthesis, not because anyone calls for a radically new theory, but because the current scope and practice of evolutionary biology clearly extend beyond the boundaries of the classical framework.”
However, that is not what is expected from the Royal Society gathering in November, since Denis Noble, the point man of the meeting, has already expressed that his interest is in replacing the Modern Synthesis, neo-Darwinism.
Suzan Mazur: Are you in favor of an evolution paradigm shift?
John Dupré: We need major changes in how evolution is understood. There’s still a great deal too much credence in the neo-Darwinian model, which has all kinds of problems.
That’s pretty straightforward…
Suzan Mazur: In my conversation with Denis Noble about natural selection, I asked him the following:
“Is it the case that there are all sorts of mechanisms at play, some of which have now been identified, that have been previously considered part of natural selection? It seems natural selection is used as a catch-all for a failure to identify what the mechanisms are.”
Denis Noble responded: “I think that’s right.” In fact, Noble characterized the whole modern synthesis as “beguiling.” I’ve interviewed many scientists about the meaning of natural selection and they all have a different explanation for what natural selection is, which makes it look like a political term.
John Dupré: It’s very vague and slippery. There was a time in the mid-20th century when it was relatively precise because it was cashed out in terms of formal models of population genetics. But these models only work, for reasons that are increasingly well understood, in very, very special circumstances. More.
Wow. Let’s hope the meeting is streamed!
Cheap seats: The fact that the Royal Society is even doing this, and hasn’t already been forced to back down (the whinging culprits faced with career ruin), is remarkable. Usually, when Darwin’s boys come to town, they clean up better.
One thinks of that poor clergyman Michael Reiss who got dumped from the Royal Society in 2009 for even suggesting that students should be encouraged to think why Darwinism Is True. Which he seemed to honestly and honorably believe. But like many clergy in the Christian tradition, he thought people should know why they are expected to believe something, instead of just accepting it under the threat of punishment for expressed doubt. I have appended the original post from the Post-Darwinist below, “Sinner in the hands of an angry god.”
The Royal Society folk may be forced to back off somewhat—how much really depends on their courage, their resources, and the moral character of their backers.
But if they at least establish that biology no longer means paying ransom to Darwin’s heirs, others can carry on the struggle from a stronger position.
Because we know so much more today, the history of life on Earth must be treated far more like the history of, say, post-War Europe than like a world-changing philosophy. The “philosophy” part has resulted in crackpot disciplines and dangerous social movements associated with Darwinism. Worse, after a while, most people begin to think that the study of evolution is those disciplines and social movements, which adds to their strength.
There is still time to open a window… ahhhh!!!
See also: Distinguished philosopher on Darwinism undermining itself: O’Hear: It makes it hard to see what faith we should have in our scientific and philosophical speculations (and many other human activities)
Talk to the fossils: Let’s see what they say back
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Michael Reiss: “A Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God”: Synopsis of a Play in Three Acts (2009)
Act One: Well-meaning Brit clergyman wants kids to know “Darwin loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life … “
On September 11, 2008 Michael Reiss, a biologist, ordained minister in the Church of England, professor of science education at the Institute for Education, and director of science education employed by the Royal Society, was quoted in an article in the Guardian by James Randerson as telling attendees at the British Association Festival of Science that,
Creationism and intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons, …
The Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, said that excluding alternatives to scientific explanations for the origin of life and the universe from science lessons was counterproductive and would alienate some children from science altogether.
[ … ]
Reiss said he used to be an “evangelist” for evolution in the classroom, but that the approach had backfired. “I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn’t lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Now I would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe,” he said.
(Here’s the audio.)
So Reiss was definitely thumping the tub for Darwin. Let no one doubt this. In fact, he made tiresomely clear that he is totally sold on “evolution”, and anyone who doubts has “worldview” problems:
Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.
So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one’s best to have a genuine discussion. The word ‘genuine’ doesn’t mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time.
[ … ]
Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one’s world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught.
So Reiss had apparently decided, from experience, that it is better to listen first, and encourage people to talk before offering a solution. That, of course, is standard modern practice in any kind of evangelism, whether for Darwin, drugs, Christianity, jihadism, or animal rights terrorism. For whatever reason, most people, offered a choice of
1. Think my way,
2. Go to hell,
– provided that no firearms are pointed directly at them – tend to respond, “Excuse me while I go check the weather news on the temperature down in hell. Back soon, … uh, honest!”
So, as Reiss made clear, he was earnest about looking for a way to convert the non-materialist sinners to random, purposeless Darwinian evolution.
Ah, but in the most faithful hearts, a seed of doubt may be nourished …
Act Two: The clergyman is himself accused of … sin!
“Creationism call divides Royal Society,” advised Robin McKie, science editor for the Guardian (Sunday September 14 2008). Indeed,Richard Roberts (British, Nobel 1993) and Harry Kroto (British, Nobel, 1996) were enraged ,and Roberts demanded that the Royal Society fire Reiss.
Roberts, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work on gene-splicing, was equally angry. ‘I think it is outrageous that this man is suggesting that creationism should be discussed in a science classroom. It is an incredible idea and I am drafting a letter to other Nobel laureates – which would be sent to the Royal Society – to ask that Reiss be made to stand down.’
‘I warned the president of the Royal Society that his [Reiss] was a dangerous appointment a year ago. I did not realise just how dangerous it would turn out to be,’ said Kroto, a Royal Society fellow, and winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize for Chemistry
Robin McKie reminds us that
The row over Reiss’s remarks is the second recent controversy over the society’s stance on religion. Fellows, including cancer expert and Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse, complained about the financial links that had been established between the society and the Templeton Foundation, a conservative US organisation that seeks to establish links between science and religion. The latter funded a lecture course at the society.
Anyone who thought that the Templeton people were about to tolerate any sort of intelligent design (let alone creationism) obviously doesn’t know them – but that would include about 100 percent of McKie’s readers, so it probably doesn’t matter.
On September 15, sinner Reiss claimed, haplessly, in a letter to theGuardian, to have been misquoted.
He once again raised his tribe’s war yell, that creationism has “no scientific validity.”
Indeed, it is a yell he has practised to perfection. As The Great Beyond blog advises, he had said much the same thing in a 2006 Guardian interview with Zoe Corbyn (“Michael Reiss: How to convert a generation: The collective voice of scientists on the best way to teach their subjects is also a priest”):
But in the spring of 2007, he will launch a book with an American academic, Sandy Jones, on teaching science to students who come from creationist homes. “I am really interested in how you teach in a way that is true to science, but doesn’t put many capable, sensitive young people off science for life, nor denigrate them,” says Reiss. His answer is not to be overly defensive, but to encourage an analysis of the evidence. “I am not expecting every young person to change their mind just because of five or 10 hours of science teaching … I love having intelligent 15-year-olds who will cheerfully argue their corner,” he says.
But, following the Royal Society’s line, Reiss stresses his opposition to the teaching of creationism in science classes (though teachers should be able to deal with it if it comes up in discussion). “There is a role for science teachers. Religious education teachers can’t be expected to know about the evidence for and against evolution,” he explains.
Yes, first and last, Rev. Reiss had been determined that the Good News of random and purposeless Darwinian evolution should be made available to children from creationist homes – and one of the ways to do that was to allow them to talk about what they in fact believed about the nature of life first.
But would that defense avail? Shooting the wounded is a religious duty, after all.
Act Three: The sinner meets Darwin’s God!
No, that defense did not avail. Proper religious justice was promptly meted out to the wayward Reiss. As the BBC inimitably put it,“Creationism” biologist steps down.
He was criticised by other scientists – though misquoted as saying creationism should be “taught” in science classes.
The society said some of his comments had been “open to misinterpretation”.
This had damaged its reputation.
But some offered to bury the ashes of Reiss’s career decently:
Lord Robert Winston, professor of science and society at Imperial College London, said: “I fear that in this action the Royal Society may have only diminished itself.
“This is not a good day for the reputation of science or scientists.
Richard Dawkins offered the moral of the play:
The official line of the US National Academy, the American equivalent of the Royal Society, is shamelessly accommodationist. They repeatedly plug the mantra that there is ‘no conflict’ between evolution and religion. Michael Reiss could argue that he is simply following the standard accommodationist line, and therefore doesn’t deserve the censure now being heaped upon him.
Unfortunately for him as a would-be spokesman for the Royal Society, Michael Reiss is also an ordained minister. To call for his resignation on those grounds, as several Nobel-prize-winning Fellows are now doing, comes a little too close to a witch-hunt for my squeamish taste.
Nevertheless – it’s regrettable but true – the fact that he is a priest undermines him as an effective spokesman for accommodationism: “Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he!”
Epilogue: And so now?
So the community sinner and scapegoat has been properly punished.
Meanwhile, brief thoughts:
1. Richard Dawkins has every right to be unhappy about this incident. For one thing, as he must realize, the clear winners are intelligent design and creationism. Kroto, Roberts, and their fans (with an earlier assist from Dawkins himself, incidentally) have now created a situation where students cannot learn about any weaknesses associated with intelligent design (or creationism). It is hard to see how that will help materialist atheists like him.
2. On the whole, I doubt that Reiss’s suggestion was a good idea. Given the current commitment of the system to defending just about every swirl of hogwash advanced in Darwin’s name, the big problem is that large numbers of intelligent students will respectfully dissent – and get away with it.
So the tribal elders had to act at once, of course.
(Heck, where can I find a reliable anthropologist to document these priceless dramas from primitive human groups before they ultimately disappear?)
– David Tyler, “Another call to counter the Forces of Ignorance”:
It seems that every organisation connected with science has leaders who feel the need to make statements opposing intelligent design and creationism. Whilst most of these get no further than the press release, one has made it to the pages of Genome Biology. The author is Gregory Petsko, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB ). The first paragraph sets the tone: “the Discovery Institute, that bastion of ignorance, right-wing political ideology, and pseudo-scientific claptrap, the creationist movement has mounted yet another assault on science.” The “assault on science” is considered to be partly propaganda and partly legislative. Leaders like Petsko appear to be afflicted with a form of schizophrenia: when writing as scientists, they are rational and moderate; but when confronted by ID or creationism, they erupt in a frenzy of wild assertions.