Evolution is a Big Word, Part 1: Is There a Consensus?

_{Jonathan Bartlett

February 5, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A recent article was released which talks about the many theories of evolution. The article is a good introduction to the variety of evolutionary theories that different people think – both inside and outside of ID. I wanted to talk about several aspects of that article in separate posts here on UD.

The first aspect I wanted to talk about is this – is there really a consensus on evolution? Here’s the quote from the article I especially want to discuss:

In the debate over origins, there has been such an effort to paint science as being decidedly evolutionary that the actual interesting details of the question get lost. What does one mean by evolution? Is evolution a sequence or a mechanism? If it is a mechanism, what is the mechanism? If two people disagree on both the sequence and the mechanism, to what extent should their opinions be taken to represent the same idea? Might there be fascinating ideas which are not being heard simply because they are being pushed into the background of the overly generalized term “evolution?”

The part in bold is especially what I want to discuss. There are numerous different ideas for the sequences of which organisms came before or followed which other organisms. There are also numerous different ideas for the mechanisms by which this might have happened. If any sequence and any mechanism can be considered “evolution”, then what does the word evolution even mean? If the word “evolution” is taken to be mutually exclusive with ID (as most in the media would have you believe), then what does evolution even mean except “Materialism”? If it means anything more than “materialism”, how can it be a consensus if the mechanism and the sequence aren’t agreed upon?

Comments

I'd say there is a resounding agreement that is it bad, and must be defeated, until it is convenient, or too well demonstrated to defeat. Same for methodological naturalism. How you rail against naturalism, until it is really nice and convenient. Simple example: Behe, in his Chloroquine resistance cluster evolution assumes a designer isn't reversing the mutations (or generating them) in his calculation of where the "edge of evolution" lies. He makes metaphysical assumptions of non-interference, no front-loading against the evolution of CCC, oberservability, and that his observations apply to a consistant world. I do the same in my science, and you cry atheism. Curious.DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

"And the answer to the latter seems to be a resounding no." You would be correct! However, it is ID that promotes academic freedom, while it is the Darwinists (such as the NCSE) who want to close down debate and claim a consensus. The ones doing the bullying are almost entirely Darwinian groups such as the NCSE and to a lesser extent biologos. "Funny thing is how often this site repeats the evolution=materialism=atheism, and then backtracks to say ID has no problem with evolution of common descent or materialist science." I think you just haven't understood the argument. "evolution" in popular parlance means Darwinism. However, when someone (like the NCSE) says, "well, evolution is a consensus in science", they are usually trying to have it both ways - to claim victory for Darwinism, but use the more general meaning of "evolution" to claim consensus. This is why I always like to hammer down the meaning of evolution. If you mean it narrowly, then ID can be anti-evolutionary. But when you define it narrowly, you can't say that there is a consensus. Likewise, there is not an in-theory problem with methodological materialism (though I disagree that it is a good approach). The philosophy of science tells us that we can aim for any two of the following: (a) completeness, (b) methodological purity, and (c) realism. So, you can aim for completeness and methodological purity, but then you must sacrifice any claims to realism. If you want to include completeness *and* realism, you must forego methodological purity. you can even have methodological purity and realism, but then you have understand that this limits the completeness of the method, and one must go outside the method to know where the boundaries lie. Philosophical materialism grasps at all three. There are many who *claim* *methodological* materialism, but then grasp at all three segments, thereby proving that they are in fact philosophical materialists, but don't want to admit it.johnnyb_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

Theres a couple of different people on this site DrREC, with different opinions about "Evolution". But you know that already. ;)Sonfaro_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

So my response to the query "Evolution is a Big Word, Part 1: Is There a Consensus?" would be ID/Creationism: Is there a consensus? And the answer to the latter seems to be a resounding no. "creationists don’t necessarily differ with evolutionists in their view of the mechanisms of evolution " "I claim instead that it [ID] is compatible with common descent" Funny thing is how often this site repeats the evolution=materialism=atheism, and then backtracks to say ID has no problem with evolution of common descent or materialist science. How very hard to fathom.DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

"Does that mean that I can ask what ID even means except anti-materialism?" I would say that ID is largely non-materialism. I don't think that anyone has been quiet about that. "Pretty much theistic evolution when boiled down." It depends. While you could reasonably apply the term "theistic evolution" to a number of beliefs (including creationism - I know that YEC Kurt Wise was once introduced by an evolutionist as being a theistic evolutionist!). However, the term "theistic evolution" as it is currently applied (by biologos and others) usually means "theistic Darwinism". But, as I point out in the article (you should take the time to read it), creationists don't necessarily differ with evolutionists in their view of the mechanisms of evolution (I do - but that's not a necessary characteristic of creationism). I've been working to interest the creation community in the work done in ID precisely because I feel that creationism (both OEC and YEC) is overly-committed to Darwinism at the evolutionary mechanism. Now, few people would claim that ID is equivalent with common descent (which is not technically evolution as it is the origin of life), but I claim instead that it is compatible with common descent. I disagree with common descent (as do many in the ID movement), but ID itself (i.e. the idea that life is the result of design instead of pure materialism) doesn't on its own presuppose one way or the other. To see more detail about the arguments about ID, the origin of life, and common descent, I will refer you to these articles: The separability (or non-separability) of abiogenesis and evolution (note that my formulation of the topic has changed since writing this - basically, the article argues for their inseparability. However, if instead you take their separability as a given, then it becomes evident that common descent is based not on evolution, but abiogenesis, and therefore, evolution is perfectly compatible with all forms of creationism) ID and Common Descent A Convergence between ID and Biologos In Defense of Frontloadingjohnnyb_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Yes I am! Did you enjoy the article?johnnyb_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

I don’t recall any biologist saying evolution is a “sequence”. To the contrary, that sounds like the popular “great chain of being” misconception, if the author meant something akin to “phylogeny”. Or perhaps he meant a sequence of events?
Sequence of organisms is the intended meaning. For instance, many people say, "we win because we have the fossils". However, the most evidence that fossils could give are evidence of sequence, not of mechanism. I can say "fossil X is below fossil Y", but that doesn't give a mechanism of evolution. However, even with the fossils, there is an argument over sequence. Is the bottom of the tree a tree or an intertwined network of roots? Did land animals happen once or multiple times? Did birds come from dinosaurs or something else? All of this questioning is done relatively independent of mechanism, so, as I pointed out, one can disagree about *both* sequence *and* mechanism, but still be considered part of the consensus.
I think “evolution” can be put very simply as “change in inheritable properties of organisms over time”.
But that's just the issue. This is agreed to by all sides. There is no one on the face of the earth who disagrees with this concept. If this is the definition of evolution, then there is no such thing as an anti-evolution group.
Compare “the evolution of arthropods” to “the history of Rome”. There are disagreements on how both happened in terms of events and causes (or “sociological mechanisms”, if you like), but it’s not that hard to understand what both mean (if it is, it’s probably because of different conceptions of “Rome” and “Arthropoda”).
This is true, except that there is a group of people (we'll just label them the NCSE for a convenient label, but it extends well beyond them) who think that if one holds a certain conception of the history of Rome, that it makes them anti-history. For instance, (NOTE - I know nothing about Roman history, so just take these examples with a grain of salt), let's say a history supposes breaks to the continuity of the Roman empire. Does that lend credence to someone else calling them anti-history? Which is precisely my point. If evolution is just a general term thrown around without any real significance, then there literally is not anti-evolution crowd. If you take it to mean something more specific, then any attempt to use "consensus" language about it falls apart.
As you put it, it sounds like a brand of dualism. I thought that, in strict sense, materialism and ID were not mutually exclusive. Weren’t aliens an option?
Most ID'ers are dualistic, and, at least my conception of ID goes hand-in-hand with dualism. That is different than the question of whether or not aliens were an option for the designer. As an example, there are atheistic dualists (or at minimum non-materialists). For such people, one could be an ID'er, even without the notion of God. Other people are pantheists, in which they put the teleology in the *universe* itself. Whether you consider these people theists or not, or whether you consider the design (which would be the universe, or parts of the universe) as God, is a matter of definitions.johnnyb_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

If the word “evolution” is taken to be mutually exclusive with ID (as most in the media would have you believe), then what does evolution even mean except “Materialism”? Does that mean that I can ask what ID even means except anti-materialism? By the way, I would argue the opposite. Most versions of ID that anyone here are defending are "designed to evolve" or "frontloading" or "ID=common descent" notions. Pretty much theistic evolution when boiled down. Now cue a hundred comments from the some folks who just told me that ID isn't against evolution or common descent!DrREC_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

By the way, johnnyb, are you Jonathan Bartlett? Bartlett is the author of the article quoted on this post as a "good introduction", and "Bartlett Publishing" is the website that appears as yours here on UD.Geoxus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Is evolution a sequence or a mechanism?
I don't recall any biologist saying evolution is a "sequence". To the contrary, that sounds like the popular "great chain of being" misconception, if the author meant something akin to "phylogeny". Or perhaps he meant a sequence of events? English words ending in "-tion" (e.g. "correction", "duplication", "conversation") usually mean both the action and the effect of something. It happens as well with other words like "design". I think this is hardly ever ambiguous.
If two people disagree on both the sequence and the mechanism, to what extent should their opinions be taken to represent the same idea?
The concept of evolution is more general than that. Big concepts are always tricky, but I think "evolution" can be put very simply as "change in inheritable properties of organisms over time". "Change", again, means both the action and the effect. Diversification and universal common ancestry are thus corollaries of the general concept of evolution. Compare "the evolution of arthropods" to "the history of Rome". There are disagreements on how both happened in terms of events and causes (or "sociological mechanisms", if you like), but it's not that hard to understand what both mean (if it is, it's probably because of different conceptions of "Rome" and "Arthropoda").
If the word “evolution” is taken to be mutually exclusive with ID (as most in the media would have you believe), then what does evolution even mean except “Materialism”?
Probably the media is more "confused" about what "ID" means (I've heard many different conceptions of this term as well). As you put it, it sounds like a brand of dualism. I thought that, in strict sense, materialism and ID were not mutually exclusive. Weren't aliens an option?Geoxus_{February 5, 2012
February
02
Feb
5
05
2012
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply