When Robert Shedinger, a religion prof at Luther College in Iowa, looked into the ID controversy, he was surprised to discover that “this literature was far more scientifically substantive than the usual caricature, and this drove me to immerse myself in the scientific literature of evolutionary biology to see if it was as convincing as usually portrayed.”
Um, yes. And the longer such critiques can be evaded rather than addressed, the more substantive they will be.
Here’s the gen on his new book, The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms: Darwinian Biology’s Grand Narrative of Triumph and the Subversion of Religion:
Is Darwinian evolution really the most successful scientific theory ever proposed—or even the best idea anyone has ever had, as Daniel Dennett once put it? The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms provides a comprehensive critical reading of the literature of evolutionary biology from Darwin to Dobzhansky to Dawkins, revealing this popular account of evolution to be a grand narrative of Darwinian triumph that greatly overstates the empirical validity of modern evolutionary theory. The mechanisms driving the evolutionary process truly remain a mystery more than one hundred fifty years after Origin of Species, a fact that can free religion scholars to think in more creative ways about the positive contributions religious reflection might make to our understanding of life’s origin and diversity. The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms calls for an embrace of mystery, understood not as an abdication of the scientific quest for truth but as a courageous and humble acknowledgment of the limits of human reason and an openness to a fundamentally religious orientation toward life.
Here’s a Q and A Shedinger has offered, outlining his thoughts:
- What is the grand narrative of Darwinian triumph?
This refers to how Darwin’s theory of natural selection has been passed from one generation of scientists to another as the most successful scientific theory of all time despite serious questions about its empirical foundation. This narrative acts to ensure the scientific status of biology as a purely materialist discipline, but actually undermines a serious attempt to grapple with the origin and diversity of life.- How does this grand narrative subvert religion?
By claiming that the diversity of life can be fully explained in purely material terms–as the result of natural selection acting on the inherent variability of organisms–this narrative renders religious ideas about a creator God or gods or some creative intelligence at work in the world of no explanatory value. Religious scholars and thinkers are thus reduced to accommodating their religious reflections to this scientific truth in ways that evacuates religious ideas of their meaning. - What aspects of modern evolutionary theory remain a mystery?
There are currently no good scientific explanations for how life emerged from inanimate matter or how mind emerges from the material brain. Likewise for the origin of the genetic code and the grammaticality of DNA. How and why did multi-cellular organisms evolve since single-celled bacteria dominate the planet and seem far better adapted to the conditions of life? How did the various animal body plans come into existence so suddenly in the Cambrian period 520 million years ago with no new body plans having evolved since? Why do so few fossil species show any evolutionary development over their life histories? This is just a sample of the many mysteries. - How do you feel about movements like creationism and intelligent design?
As a trained biblical scholar I cannot read the book of Genesis literally or historically. The 4.5 billion year age of the Earth is well established scientifically, and the fossil record as well as the biogeographical distribution of species around the world is strong support for an evolutionary process. So I cannot accept strict creationist ideas. I am, however, open to the intelligent design idea that life’s history cannot be explained without recourse to some type of intelligent agent. I do not identify this agent with the biblical God as some intelligent design advocates do, but I am sympathetic to the criticisms of Darwinism coming from the intelligent design movement and the principle that life cannot be explained apart from intelligence. - What motivated you to delve so deeply into the history and development of evolutionary theory?
I took over the teaching of a science and religion class from a retiring colleague some years ago and began reading intelligent design literature so I could accurately represent it in class. To my shock I found that this literature was far more scientifically substantive than the usual caricature, and this drove me to immerse myself in the scientific literature of evolutionary biology to see if it was as convincing as usually portrayed. It was through this process that I began to see the contours of a grand narrative of Darwinian triumph emerging from the literature. - Why do you feel it is valid to read scientific literature from the perspective of a scholar trained in the humanities?
Because science is just as much a human undertaking as any other academic discipline, and the production of knowledge is always bound up with the exercise of power. Humanities scholars–and religion scholars in particular– who are trained to be sensitive to these power dynamics have much to contribute to an understanding of how and why certain scientific ideas develop and become dominant in a culture. - Do you think the mystery of life on Earth will ever be fully understood scientifically?
It is impossible to say. But I think the obstacles to a fully scientific understanding are profound. And in many ways I hope the answer here is no. I find grappling with mystery much more exhilarating than knowing all the answers.
In point 5 the Prof states,
And yet, the fossil record as well as the biogeographical distribution of species around the world ARE NOT strong support for an evolutionary process.
The fossil record in and of itself is upside down from what Darwin predicted:
Likewise there are many examples of biogeographical distribution of species that simply do not fit the Darwinian narrative. Many examples are highlighted in the following article
In fact, what is termed to be ‘convergent evolution’, the repeated independent origin of complex structures, destroys the logic behind common ancestry
Thus the evidence he sites as “strong support for an evolutionary process” simply is nowhere near a strong as he imagines it to be.
This reminds me of this recent article that pointed out that there is simply no ‘high confidence’ evidence’ a Darwinist can offer as “strong support for an evolutionary process”
Thus although the Professor is right that a strict young earth creationist (YEC) is very difficult to defend, none-the-less, old earth creationism, (which many of the early Christians have historically held to be true, (for instance Lord Kelvin)), is very much a scientifically defensible position to hold.
For instance:
As you can see, when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. – In fact modern science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/sabine-hossenfelder-dusts-off-superdeterminism/#comment-681612
Bornagain77 @ 1
Both contenders for the crown in cosmology – Big Bang and Steady State – were naturalistic/materialistic (nat/mat) theories
The current age of the universe is estimated to be around 13.82 bn years, somewhat older than the 6000 years predicted by one interpretation of a theistic faith.
Theism covers a number of faiths. Not all of them hold that God is sustaining the entire universe from second-to-second.
Non-locality in quantum mechanics (a nat/mat theory) does not necessarily imply that the universe is dependent on something outside itself for continued existence.
Consciousness is not observed to exist apart from a physical substrate. A living brain exhibits consciousness, a dead brain does not. The signs of consciousness that were once exhibited by a dead brain have so far proven to be unrecoverable in all cases.
Researchers are still arguing over how to understand the “observer effect” in quantum physics. It certainly doesn’t support the simplistic notion that consciousness is what holds reality together and it doesn’t answer the obvious question which is that, if nothing exists until it is being observed or measured, what is being observed or measured in the first place?
Both Newtonian mechanics and relativity are nat/mat theories.
None of the theistic faiths that I’m aware of make specific predictions about the rate at which time passes.
Psalm 90:4 – “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” refers to God’s perception of time.
2 Timothy 1:9 – “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” concerns salvation not time.
And neither make any prediction concerning the speed of light.
Observations and calculations have shown that, if certain fundamental physical (nat/mat) constants varied from their observed values by even a small amount, the universe in which we live could not exist. The vast majority of this universe is unremittingly hostile to organic life such as ourselves. It is a huge leap of faith from those observations to the conclusion that this entire universe was created just for us.
Nat/mat estimates concerning the prevalence of life in the universe vary considerably. Our planet could be unique, not just “extremely unique” (is that like being ‘a bit pregnant’) in the sense that there is no other exactly like it that we know of. On the other hand, astronomers are finding plentiful evidence of planets around nearby stars so it’s certainly possible that there are other planets similar to Earth which bear life. Any theistic prediction that the Earth is unique as a home for life is in serious danger of being proved wrong.
Nat/mat observations find evidence of life stretching far into deep time, tailing off billions of years ago and completely at odds with a special creation event 6000 years back.
The simplest life found on earth so far is not necessarily the earliest life ever to appear on Earth. Its relative complexity does not contradict the hypothesis that much simpler forms existed earlier or support a claim that they were created by a god.
The nat/mat theory of evolution predicted that the “unfolding” of life would proceed in small, incremental steps but allowed that the rate at which it could happen could vary considerably. The 20-25 mn year Cambrian Explosion was a period when it happened a lot more rapidly but there is evidence of life preceding it. It was not the original creation event described in Genesis.
Nat/mat theory holds that fossilization is a very rare event but even so transitional fossils have already been found. Theism makes no predictions about the existence let alone the frequency of fossils, transitional or otherwise, in the geological record.
It is estimated that new species are being discovered by science at the rate of 15000 – 20000 per year. The rate of speciation can vary hugely, new species of large animals taking hundreds of thousands of years to appear while new bacteria or viruses can emerge in just a few years. One study cataloged some 1400 human pathogens of which 87 were characterized as “novel”. If evolution occurs, there is no reason to think it has stopped now.
Nothing in that research contradicts Darwin’s original claim that it was a question of degree not of kind.
Nat/mat still predicts that much of our DNA is ‘junk’. The ENCODE researchers were heavily criticized for overstating their case.
Theism said nothing about the existence of DNA, let alone how much of it night be ‘junk’
Nat/mat theory always held that more mutations were detrimental than beneficial if for no other reason than that there are many more ways for something to go wrong than to go right. With the advent of neutral theory, the majority of mutations are held to be neutral or nearly so, a much smaller number are detrimental and a much smaller number still are positively beneficial, all of that being dependent on circumstances.
As noted before, theism made no predictions concerning the existence of DNA, let alone the relative frequencies of neutral, detrimental or beneficial mutations.
Nat/mat argues that morality is subjective. Theistic faiths simply argue that the morality dispensed by their chosen deity overrides all others. That doesn’t make it objective. The claim that morality is somehow embedded in our genes or in the fabric of the universe is an entirely unsubstantiated claim.
As noted above, quantum theory is a nat/mat theory. It just deals with nat/mat reality on the very smallest scales. It lends no support to the concept of a transcendent soul which at best is poorly-defined and at worst is incoherent.
Furthermore, in his The Life of Samuel Johnson James Boswell recounts the following episode:
The reality is that, if you kick a stone hard now, it will hurt your foot just as much as it did in Johnson’s day. Quantum theory has not changed that one jot. What has changed profoundly is our understanding of the nature of matter right down to the quantum scale. And quantum theory and the phenomena it describes do not appear in any theology. It is entirely a product of naturalistic science. If we had relied on religion to guide us in these matters we would still be entirely ignorant about the quantum domain.
(January 2019 – defense of all 16 predictions against Seversky’s naturalistic counterclaims))
https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/michael-shermers-case-for-scientific-naturalism/#comment-670894
I guess the obvious question should be asked. What scientific credentials does a religion prof have? As much as a bornagain Christian? As much as an Orthodox Jew? As much as a conspiracy theorist?
Folks, the decisive evidence on the world of life is coming on seventy years old: coded, digital information in DNA and intricate, complex organised molecular nanotech execution machinery. Language, algorithms [thus purpose], coordinated execution machinery antecedent to life. Including, antecedent to self-replication per von Neumann kinematic self replicator. If that has not told, the problem is not science or empirical evidence or what we know about functionally specific complex organisation and associated information or language and algorithms and their known cause. It is ideology and its institutional dominance backed by obviously powerful interests. Until such are sufficiently broken, their imposed crooked yardsticks as standards of straight, accurate and upright will always lock out what is genuinely such. Not even a naturally straight and upright plumb-line can easily break the stranglehold of such a system. De system, de system, de system . . . as Mutabaruka sang, decades ago. KF
BB at 4:
Apparently far more than an atheistic troll on UD has:
Brother Brian:
More then you and any other person who thinks blind watchmaker evolution is science.
Seversky:
That is false.
LoL! You are conflating the age of the earth with the age of the universe.
That is also false.
That is also false.
Except it doesn’t have a mechanism capable of doing that.
That is nonsense. OBSERVATIONS tell us that, not any theory.
No, it does not
No, it is not.
This is a new level of pathetic, even for Seversky. The post is full of lies, misconceptions and misrepresentations.
Bornagain77 @ 3 :
If I remember correctly, 8 posts at around 14,500 words. I’m sorry but saying much the same thing at much greater length is not any more persuasive..
Sev
Are you suggesting that brevity is more persuasive than the written equivalent of the Gi$h Gallop?
Seversky, unlike you, I do not make false claims with no empirical backing. I take care to reference each of my claims. This takes time and words. You, on the other hand, since you have no evidence for your claims can spew falsehoods in a much shorter space.
Also of note to being persuasive, I have given up years ago trying to persuade you of anything and have settled for showing the unbiased reader how dishonest and vacuous you are in your arguments. Thanks for helping in that endeavor. At least you are of some use after all.