Thursday, October 14, 2010

Jay Richards Asks "Can You Be a Darwinist and a Theist?"

Jay Richards, editor of the new book God and Evolution, has given us a short taste of what the book is about in a video posted on the DI website. In it, he hopes to strike a logical blow against the idea of theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism, if you prefer). In it, he states:
When English speakers use the word “evolution” they usually mean neo-Darwinian evolution which means that all the adaptive complexity you see is the result of random genetic mutation acted on by natural selection and they mean that as an impersonal and purposeless process. But when they say “random,” that’s not just some mathematical term that’s perfectly compatible with a view of God’s providence. They mean “purposeless” and that’s the problem. Not even God can direct an “undirected” process.
This is classic Discovery Institute sleight-of-hand. Mr. Richards focuses on the idea that mutations are random and then extrapolates this idea to the entire evolutionary process, which he argues cannot logically be incorporated into a view of a providential God.

But by equating mutation with selection, he glosses completely over the fact that selection is not random. It is directional and depends on the kind of environment in which the organism lives. Environments change over time and are different depending on where they are on the planet. Selection acts in populations based on these different biomes. If evolution is random, then the appearance of these biomes in different areas and at different times is random as well.

Oddly, he also fails to address the validity of incorporating the randomness of mutations into the view of a providential God. If mutations drive evolution, as Richards states, and evolution is random, then mutations must be random as well.

I plan to rent this as soon as it is available and it is possible I will arrive at a different conclusion once I have seen it. Given the DI's track record, however, I suspect that the four minute video is representative of the whole.

Richards argues that “neo-Darwinian” evolution is incompatible with belief in a providential God and that this is something that theistic evolutionists don’t want to face. This is only true if evolution works the way that Richards thinks it does. It does not. Evolution, properly understood, does not address the existence of God, no matter how much the Discovery Institute would wish otherwise.

----------------
Now playing: Mike Oldfield - Incantations Part Two
via FoxyTunes

15 comments:

  1. I wonder how he deals with the idea of "casting lots".

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is interesting. If you read Kenneth Miller's book Finding Darwin's God he argues that there is built-in uncertainty even at the quantum level. I think Heisenberg encountered that but I am not certain...(wait for boos). He argued you couldn't measure accurately both the position and momentum of a particle.

    One of the examples that Miller uses in his books is particle ejection in the process of radioactive decay. You know the alpha particle is going to be ejected, but there is no way to determine which direction it is going to go.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You say, "It [selection] is directional and depends on the kind of environment in which the organism lives."

    I wonder if you can expound on this idea.

    Specifically, if selection is "directional," does that mean it is directed toward some end, purpose, or goal?

    And if selection is directed toward an end or goal, then does that not entail something or someone outside of the selection process to direct the direction? Otherwise, how would it [the process of selection] know the end toward which it is directed?

    Are you claiming that God is directing the selection process?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  4. rigadoon7:05 PM

    You quote Richards saying people mean evolution is "purposeless" and, yes, that is the problem. The science community has excised purpose and can find no purpose -- not even when studying human life.

    ReplyDelete
  5. rigadoon, I am not sure that is fair to the scientific endeavor. Science was never meant to prove or disprove the existence of God. It is just that, in days of yore, when people examined the world's marvels, they remarked "what a wondrous creation God has made." Nowadays, not so much. Science doesn't make people atheists or theists. That comes from their social constructs.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The quote actually makes sense to me and highlights a problem I'm having with understanding the claims of TE. It boils down to the question, "Was/is God somehow in control of evolution or not?"

    No matter how it's phrased, as randomness, chance, providence and so on, it seems to me that this is a crucial question.

    Jay Richards says, 'But when they say “random,” that’s not just some mathematical term that’s perfectly compatible with a view of God’s providence. They mean “purposeless” and that’s the problem.'

    I don't read that as claiming that random does mean purposeless, but that many people make that inference and, by doing so, exclude a God-influenced process.

    There have been some quite lively and detailed discussions over at Biologos on what "random" means. In any case, if TE says that evolution has occurred purely by natural processes, excluding divine intervention as a form of ID, in what sense is God involved?

    Now Francis Collins, in The Language of God, advocates a TE view that explicitly denies (at one level) supernatural activity: "Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required" (pg 200).

    A few pages later, though, he asks the question "If evolution is random, how could He really be in charge ...?" and answers that because God is outside time, "In that context, evolution could appear to us to be driven by chance, but from God's perspective the outcome would be entirely specified. God could be completely and intimately involved in the creation of all species, while from our perspective, limited as it is by the tyranny of linear time, this would appear a random and undirected process" (pg 205, emphasis added).
    The word "appear" is a crucial one. Collins is saying that while TE appears to be a random process fully explainable by natural (non-directed) processes, it is actually not. In fact, the entire process is (or in principle may be) not only guided but fully determined by God!

    This seems reasonable, but then my question is, why all the hot air between ID and TE? By this formulation, the differences seem to be only in degree--does God's direction include large, extremely improbable changes that make us question the adequacy of a naturalistic explanation, or does he use only subtle ones (such as chaotic processes and the timing of nuclear decay), hiding his involvement?

    ReplyDelete
  7. It seems to me that this word "appear" is a crucial one. If I understand, Collins appears to be saying that while TE appears to be a random process fully explainable by natural (non-directed) processes, it is actually not. In fact, the entire process may be not only influenced but fully determined by God ... predestinarian evolution!

    This makes sense to me, but if this is what TE means, then why all the hot air between TE and ID? It would seem that the difference is only a matter of degree: is God sometimes working through large, extremely improbable interventions that make us question the adequacy of a purely natural explanation, or is he hiding his tracks by limiting his intervention to undetectable events such as tweaking chaotic processes or the timing of underdetermined processes like nuclear decay?

    In summary, according to TE, has God directed evolution (both biological and of the universe) or has he not? If he has, then how is this still compatible with a strong naturalistic view of evolution? If not, then how is it still theological?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't know what kind of mess I've left in the comments, since I can't see them, but I have made several attempts to post and just get error messages such as "URL is too long to process" or others. So I hope you can make heads or tails of it and discard any duplicates, if anything actually got into the moderation pile. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The quote actually makes sense to me and highlights a problem I'm having with understanding the claims of TE. It boils down to the question, "Was/is God somehow in control of evolution or not?"

    No matter how it's phrased, as randomness, chance, providence and so on, it seems to me that this is a crucial question.

    Jay Richards says, 'But when they say “random,” that’s not just some mathematical term that’s perfectly compatible with a view of God’s providence. They mean “purposeless” and that’s the problem.'

    I don't read that as claiming that random does mean purposeless, but that many people make that inference and, by doing so, exclude a God-influenced process.

    There have been some quite lively and detailed discussions over at Biologos on what "random" means. In any case, if TE says that evolution has occurred purely by natural processes, excluding divine intervention as a form of ID, in what sense is God involved? ...continued...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Now Francis Collins, in The Language of God, advocates a TE view that explicitly denies (at one level) supernatural activity: "Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required" (pg 200).

    A few pages later, though, he asks the question "If evolution is random, how could He really be in charge ...?" and answers that because God is outside time, "In that context, evolution could appear to us to be driven by chance, but from God's perspective the outcome would be entirely specified. God could be completely and intimately involved in the creation of all species, while from our perspective, limited as it is by the tyranny of linear time, this would appear a random and undirected process" (pg 205, emphasis added).

    It seems to me that this word "appear" is a crucial one. If I understand, Collins appears to be saying that while TE appears to be a random process fully explainable by natural (non-directed) processes, it is actually not. In fact, the entire process may be not only influenced but fully determined by God ... predestinarian evolution! ...continued...

    ReplyDelete
  11. This makes sense to me, but if this is what TE means, then why all the hot air between TE and ID? It would seem that the difference is only a matter of degree: is God sometimes working through large, extremely improbable interventions that make us question the adequacy of a purely natural explanation, or is he hiding his tracks by limiting his intervention to undetectable events such as tweaking chaotic processes or the timing of under-determined processes like nuclear decay?

    In summary, according to TE, has God directed evolution (both biological and of the universe) or has he not? If he has, then how is this still compatible with a strong naturalistic view of evolution? If not, then how is it still theological?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mike - I think you hit the nail on the head -- four times!

    ReplyDelete
  13. "This seems reasonable, but then my question is, why all the hot air between ID and TE?"

    The hot air occurs because there are many at the Discovery Institute and that support ID that specifically deny that evolution at a macro scale occurs--that rather than a "random process," such and such was "God-directed." If you read the writings of David Berlinski and David Klinghoffer, to them, evolution is absolutely random, with no God-direction at all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You seem to criticize them for saying it is God-directed rather than random, and then criticize them for saying it is random rather than God-directed. So, is your complaint that DI and ID say that evolution is random, or that it is God-directed, or both? (Or have I misunderstood your point?!)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, I muddied the water a little bit. David Berlinski, over at the DI claims (falsely) that there is little evidence for evolution, while David Klinghoffer, also at the DI, claims that evolutionary theory is responsible for all of the evils in the world because it emphasizes randomness and is directionless, leading people to think that there is no God. So I am complaining that Berlinski is wrong because he has not got the facts right and I am complaining that Klinghoffer is wrong because he is elevating evolution to a first cause when it is nothing of the sort.

    ReplyDelete