How Evolution will be Taught Someday

_{Granville Sewell

February 28, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

In any debate, it is always good strategy to acknowledge your opponent’s strongest points up front, effectively taking those points off the table. The evolutionist’s strongest points are the fact that science has been so successful to date in finding “natural” (unintelligent) causes in other areas of science, and the fact that the development of life, in many ways, simply “looks like” it was due to natural causes. On the other hand, there is virtually no evidence that natural selection can explain anything more than trivial changes, and the idea that it can account for the complexity of life is patently absurd. In all debates over evolution, our opponents emphasize the features of evolution which, admittedly, suggest natural causes (“a designer wouldn’t have done things this way”, as Darwin himself often wrote), and can usually count on this as being mistaken as evidence for the default natural cause (Darwinism), without the need to even discuss natural selection’s role.

My essay “How Evolution will be Taught Someday” approaches the debate by saying, ok, maybe evolution does give the appearance of natural causes, and we’ll even let you call it a “natural” process, as long as you don’t claim you know what those natural causes are. Then what?

Comments

Bob O'H:
But how would one know that this was the unsolvable problem if one didn’t try to solve it? A commitment to methodological naturalism encourages trying to solve this sort of problem, i.e. not to asking “is this the problem that’s unsolvable”, but rather “how can we try and solve it”?
Absolutely, methodological naturalism encourages trying to solve every problem -- with a natural solution. However, the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism is that methodological naturalism tries to solve the problem where philosophical naturalism assumes that every problem can be solved with a natural solution. Methodological naturalism admits to every problem, always wondering if this will be the problem that is unsolvable via natural means; philosophical naturalism assumes that there really isn't any problem. Don't believe me, look at how inconsequential the issue of OOL is presented to be.bFast_{February 28, 2008
February
02
Feb
28
28
2008
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

If science were to hold to methodological naturalism, it would look at every unknown with a child’s wonder, “is this going to be the unsolvable problem, the limit of a naturalistic explanation?”
But how would one know that this was the unsolvable problem if one didn't try to solve it? A commitment to methodological naturalism encourages trying to solve this sort of problem, i.e. not to asking "is this the problem that's unsolvable", but rather "how can we try and solve it"? Methodological naturalism is a form of pragmatism - committing to it is committing to trying to solve problems, rather than worrying if they have a solution. We accept that we might not solve it ourselves, and indeed that solving one small question raises more unsolved problems - that's science for you. It's what makes it fun. The wonder comes from seeing that we can solve these problems, and understand the natural world. It might be that there are scientific problems that cannot be solved through methodological naturalism, but I can't see any way of finding out which they are other than by trying to solve them, and repeatedly failing.Bob O'H_{February 28, 2008
February
02
Feb
28
28
2008
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

The paper about the giraffe that Dr. Sewell refers to uses the term "synthetic theory of evolution" which as I understand it meant to describe what evolutionary biology calls the current theory to explain changes in organisms over time. It is the first time I heard this term. Here is one description of it "We now understand that natural selection is just one of a number of processes that can lead to evolution. This knowledge has resulted in the development of a more complete understanding of genetic changes that is usually described as the synthetic theory of evolution. This is essentially a combination of Charles Darwin's concept of natural selection, Gregor Mendel's basic understanding of genetic inheritance, along with evolutionary theories developed since the early 20th century by population geneticists and more recently by molecular biologists." If we are going to propose a better way to teach and explain evolution, then it would probably be good to understand just how it is taught today and which aspects of it are not based on good empirical data. We should also should separate what is science and what is philosophical in its approach. We often conflate the two and when that is done the arguments get more emotional than reasoned.jerry_{February 28, 2008
February
02
Feb
28
28
2008
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Granville: I certainly agree with your opening proposition. To begin with your opponents’ best argument is a very effective TACTIC. The technique is to “inoculate” the audience early, so that they become “immune” and can no longer be “infected” by the arguments. I keeping with your point, I submit, that the most important STRATEGY is to frame the argument to your advantage. As G. K. Chesterton once said, “grant me his one assumption, and the rest will be easy.” The principle involved is this: He who frames the issue wins the argument. Consider, for example, Michael Behe’s thesis, “the edge of evolution.” Think about that for a minute. Darwinism teaches that there is no edge to evolution. To frame the issue of evolution in terms of its “edge” is to win the argument. The only thing left to consider is where that edge may be. Similarly, once one broaches the subject of information, the one subject that Darwinism can’t touch, the battle is half won even before you enter the arena. While we labor incessantly over details, we tend to forget the most important issue. The headline is the most important part of the argument, because that is where the context of the argument is established. The corollary to the framing principle is this: He who asks the questions controls the dialogue. Our opponents frame the issue when they bring up the “wedge” document or when they allude to the Dover trial. In effect, they are framing the issue by perpetuating the lie that CS is synonymous with ID. We should reframe the issue with this question: “Don’t you know the difference between a presupposition and an inference?”StephenB_{February 28, 2008
February
02
Feb
28
28
2008
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

To the people who insist on "natural" processes I would ask them about the processes responsible for the origin of nature (natural processes only exist in nature and cannot be responsible for its origin). I would also point out that both "intelligence" and "design"* are natural in that both exist in nature. Then what? *I use "design" in the same sense as Del Ratzsch in "Nature, Design and Science", as an indicator of agency activity.Joseph_{February 28, 2008
February
02
Feb
28
28
2008
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Alas, if we could put a mighty wedge between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, the problem with science would be fully solved in my opinion. If science were to hold to methodological naturalism, it would look at every unknown with a child's wonder, "is this going to be the unsolvable problem, the limit of a naturalistic explanation?" Such a science would get past its cocky opinion that "we will solve the problem of OOL very soon", and it would admit to a plethora of unprovens within biology. Such a science would also not be bothered when philosophers and theologians point to those unknowns and say "God is here". Rather they would just say, "maybe, however we are continuing to look for a natural explanation." If science had a humble committment to methodological naturalism, I would have to find something else to spend my free time on.bFast_{February 28, 2008
February
02
Feb
28
28
2008
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Thanks Granville I started a page on the Giraffe at ResearchID.org listing Lönnig's papers and summary comments. Readers are welcome to add further material.DLH_{February 28, 2008
February
02
Feb
28
28
2008
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

bFast, I agree with you, but I think you would also agree that this would still be a big improvement, and probably the best we can hope for in the near future.Granville Sewell_{February 28, 2008
February
02
Feb
28
28
2008
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Granville Sewell:
... mysterious "natural" process, which scientists do not now understand, but hope to understand some day. Natural selection may then be mentioned only as a historical footnote, as a very simplistic early attempt to explain the workings of this natural process.
If the texts took out the "natural" part, I would be richly satisfied. I respect methodological naturalism as long as it remains distinctively separate from philosophical naturalism. As soon as the word "natural" is placed in the sentances, the sentance becomes a statement of philosophical naturalism -- a religious belief that should be banned in schools. Alternatively, however, I would find the following sentance to be appropriate:
... mysterious process, scientists do not now understand. We are exploring possible natural causes.
bFast_{February 28, 2008
February
02
Feb
28
28
2008
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

If evolution is to be taught intelligently then there has to be some basic understanding of terms and how each species arrived on the planet. For example, what is meant by evolution? What is a trivial change? When would a change not be trivial? Which species can point to natural selection as the cause of their origin and which cannot? Dr. Sewell point to the giraffe. The giraffe is a mammal. Which other mammals are in the same category and which are not? What type of information would be necessary to determine if a species arrived by natural selection or not? What are the definitions of micro-evolution and macro-evolution? Is there a gap between them? Is there a direction to evolution? And if there is what is the direction? What is meant by common descent? Should the term be differentiated from universal common descent? If we use the term "theistic evolution" what does it mean" How is it different from ID? If there are other natural mechanisms besides natural selection, what are they and how likely are they to explain evolutionary changes? There are probably many other questions to be answered. Everyone here like to use their favorite terms and arguments but I believe these all should be standardized and maybe Dr. Sewell's post could act as a stimulus for such a process.jerry_{February 28, 2008
February
02
Feb
28
28
2008
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply