Here's William Lane Craig's most recent Q&A "#-671 Do 'Random' Mutations Occur by 'Chance'?".
As explained, too many people on both sides of the creation/evolution debate think that “random,” when used by evolutionary biologists to characterize mutations, means purposeless or without direction or by chance. But that’s not at all what they mean. Rather they mean that the mutations occur regardless of their benefit to the organism in which they occur. Such an understanding of “random” is not at all contrary to God’s having a purpose for the mutations that occur or even Himself causing the mutations to occur.
1. If we want a strict biology textbook definition, sure, mutations are "random" in the sense that the mutation that occurs is unpredictable in relation to what is useful to the organism. The mutation that occurs is unrelated to the usefulness of the mutation to the organism.
2. However, that's not always what we're talking about when we talk about random mutations. It depends on the context. Surely (surely!) Craig knows when people debate creation/evolution/ID, they're not always or solely talking about the strict biology textbook definition of random mutations. Rather creation/evolution/ID debates likewise involve questions over more fundamental issues. Such as the existence of God as well as the nature and scope of God's intervention in nature. So the use of both kinds of definitions for random mutations aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
3. To be more specific, in the context of naturalistic evolution (e.g. Dawkins, Coyne), it's legitimate to argue that these mutations are ultimately purposeless or unguided. Given naturalistic evolution, what is the ultimate source of these "random" mutations?
We come to see that evolutionary theory does not assert that the mutations which lie at the root of evolutionary development and, hence, evolution itself occur purposelessly or by chance, as popularizers and even careless scientists often claim. By properly understanding the meaning of “random” in evolutionary theory, we come to see that evolution is wholly compatible with God’s providentially directing the evolutionary process.
However, this doesn't depend on evolutionary theory (neo-Darwinism) in and of itself. Rather, as I've just said, it depends on whether we're talking about (say) theistic evolution or atheistic evolution. The textbook definition of random mutations is consistent with either theistic evolution or atheistic evolution.
I’m implying that the theory of evolution is not incompatible with Christian theism because it does not assert that the mutations which advance evolutionary change occur by chance or without purpose...What I’m implying is that God, while quite able to create fully functional biological organisms de novo, may have instead chosen to create them indirectly by deliberately causing the mutations that drove evolutionary advance.
1. Now, it could be Craig is simply answering this question or objection without offering his personal beliefs about the matter. Perhaps that's the case.
2. However, maybe I'm mistaken, but my impression is Craig has been becoming more sympathetic to theistic evolution as well as more skeptical about the historical Adam and Eve over the years. Again, that's not to suggest Craig currently accepts theistic evolution or denies the historical Adam and Eve. But it seems to me he is at least intellectually sympathetic to both positions, even if that's not his personal conviction.
Take the historical Adam and Eve. It seems to me Craig might be sympathetic in believing either there may not have been a historical Adam and Eve (e.g. Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve lived thousands of years apart from one another), or if there was, then they were "chosen" by God out of a pool of other hominids and "made into" the historical Adam and Eve.
3. If it's true Craig is becoming more sympathetic to accepting theistic evolution and/or denying the historical Adam and Eve, then I presume his main influence is the Christian physician-scientist Joshua Swamidass at Peaceful Science. I think Swamidass is in essence a theistic evolutionist, but he often seems circumspect about saying so explicitly. The latest two Reasonable Faith podcasts involve Swamidass (here, here).
Swamidass is not only a "theistic" evolutionist but *explicitly* a methodological naturalist. So if God was involved at all, it has to look like he wasn't involved!
ReplyDeleteIn other words, if God caused these mutations, he had to do so in such a subtle way that it looks like they were random in the stronger sense of unguided.
Thanks, Lydia! That's helpful and good to know. The reason being, well, let me back up. I've seen Swamidass' name around for a while, but I've only very recently (as in a couple of days ago!) started looking into Swamidass. It started when I watched his recent debate with Behe here. One question which came to my mind, and which I emailed to a couple of friends, was this: Is their [Behe and Swamidass] dispute fundamentally a dispute over methodological naturalism, where Behe is arguing for a place for God's direct and explicit intervention, at least at the origin of life, whereas Swamidass is not? So what you say definitely helps. Anyway, that was probably a long and roundabout way to say thanks. :)
DeleteSwamidass is really pretty awful, by more than one person's account. I think it's a crying shame that Bill Craig has chosen to place such reliance on him. He is deeply anti-ID, and I'm told by reliable sources that his "peaceful science" site (where I never hang out) is anything but peaceful if you happen to be an advocate of ID, promoting a strong double standard for the way that ID people have to act as compared with the way that others are allowed to treat them.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, to speak more analytically, Dr. Craig can make a big deal about different meanings of "random" if he wishes, but he's using as his scientific guide a person whose position is that the two must be epistemologically indistinguishable. So why bother making the distinction as if people who talk about randomness as unguidedness are just ignorant?
"Swamidass is really pretty awful"
DeleteJust started on Craig's podcast involving Swamidass and within the first few moments I come across this truly "awful" argument from Swamidass below. It's a mess biblically, theologically, and even scientifically. I may have to do a post on it tomorrow, time permitting.
"His hypothesis is that Adam and Eve were special creations of God a few thousand years ago in the Garden of Eden, but that outside the Garden the traditional story of biological evolution had been going on all the while, and these primates evolved into Australopithecines and then those evolved into various forms of archaic Homo species until finally people evolved who were capable of having sexual intercourse and interbreeding with the children that Adam and Eve sired. What happened then was after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden and began to have progeny themselves the descendants of Adam and Eve interbred with this population that had evolved according to the evolutionary story from these primitive primates. And that's why, when geneticists look at the human genome, they see that we’re 95% similar to chimpanzees. We have vestiges of these hominid genomes in our genome today because we are the product not simply of the children of Adam and Eve but we are also the product of these evolved people outside the Garden."
Just took a shower, made something to eat, and finished listening to Craig's podcast. Craig disagrees with this argument from Swamidass, and I agree with Craig's criticisms for the most part.
DeleteHowever, Craig uses kiddy gloves on Swamidass. Craig would say things like this isn't really Swamidass' position, Swamidass is just floating the idea, and so on, but that strikes me as naive at best, and I don't think of Craig as a naive person in general. It's like the kind of excuses a person infatuated with another person might make for the other person's weird comments.
Actually, I suspect perhaps Swamidass doesn't really hold this position, but that's because I'm more cynical. That is to say, if Swamidass is just floating this position and doesn't really believe it, I'm pretty sure that it's because what he really believes is just a standard version of theistic evolution of human beings *without* any Adam and Eve! That is, the added part is the part that would seem to appeal *more* to creationists. And what is worrisome is that many Christians are like, "Oh, cool, this scientist thinks we could have been specially created and have a traditional Adam and Eve." Well, not really. After all, the traditional Adam is supposed to be the sole progenitor of the human race. Even in this scenario (even if Swamidass did believe it), God pretty much intends from the outset that Adam & Eve's offspring would interbreed with these "people outside the garden." Do they have the imago dei? Who knows? I don't think Swamidass really cares very much. At times he seems to define "imago dei" as "descended from Adam and Eve." But in that case, we would be like, "Hey, Seth, wanna go marry a nice hominid girl who doesn't have the imago dei? That's been the plan all along, you know!" I really think Swamidass is pretty cavalier about such things.
DeleteThis would be hilarious if it weren’t so painfully true! :) By the way, I think Craig likewise brought up the imago dei issues where, give what Swamidass says, the conclusion could well be that there are hominids that are for all intents and purposes think, look, act, and speak like us yet they don’t have the imago dei.
DeleteYes, my "spies" tell me Craig has not been really pleased theologically with Swamidass's suggestion. But at the same time, my strong impression is that he is treating him as a high authority on "the science." That's a mistake. For one thing, Ann Gauger and Ola Hossjer have models that would be more consistent with at least an old earth traditional Adam, wherein Adam and Eve really are the sole progenitors of the human race. This would require (as many old-earth views already do) a lot of big gaps in the Genesis genealogies, but there is no need for these "people outside the garden." Their models are scientific in nature, but Swamidass will not treat them as respectable options because they involve significant physical discontinuity via divine creatives acts with any animal ancestors rather than evolution of the body of man. I can only guess why Craig doesn't treat these models as at least equally viable. I suspect (this is a guess) that he more or less chose Swamidass as a *scientific* leader and is taking his word for it that somehow alternative models of human origins don't work scientifically, reserving the right only to have theological concerns or objections. But I could be wrong about that.
DeleteThanks, Lydia. I've never read Ola Hossjer, unfortunately, but I definitely agree with you about Ann Gauger! I think she's a fine scientist, at least judging by her chapters in one of the DI books about Adam & Eve (I forget the exact title). Though I haven't read her published scientific papers (I think she has some at the ID journal Biocomplexity I think it's called?). Anyway very meticulous in her research, doggedly chasing down the evidence, fair-minded in her analysis, etc.
DeleteAnd it's a shame there's been so much persecution of so many good scientists like her by academic institutions even though Gauger and others (e.g. Doug Axe, Richard Sternberg) are certainly far better scientists than Swamidass, even though Swamidass is well-educated, has numerous distinctions and accolades, teaches at a top medical institution. In fact, the more I understand Swamidass the less impressed I am with him and his work. Maybe Swamidass is a sign of the times in which we live - looks great on paper, but little substance in fact.
I really wonder why Craig seems to rely so much on Swamidass too. What about him won Craig over? Did Craig just find Swamidass personally charming? Could it be something as mundane as that? At the same time, in the podcast, Craig also mentions his friend Andrew Loke who is apparently called "the William Lane Craig of Asia". I think Loke is a physician and a philosophical theologian in Hong Kong. Anyway it sounds like Craig was something of a mentor to Loke, a role or relationship that Craig seems to be proud of and even relish a bit (maybe justifiably so). By the way Craig also mentioned in the podcast that Loke "defends" the position that Adam and Eve interbred with hominids which were outside Eden, which is similar to Swamidass. In any case, I wonder if Craig likewise regards himself as somthing of mentor to Swamidass? If so, maybe that relationship is a blindspot for Craig with regard to Swamidass's arguments? I have no idea of course. Just pure speculation.
Also, granted I've only recently been deep diving into Swamidass' scientific research, but so far I don't see how his work is superior to the work of other scientists (like the ones we've listed above) who come to completely different conclusions regarding effectively the same or similar scientific data or evidence. Of course, I realize they're not all working in the exact same areas, but I mean in a more fundamental sense that various data, even disparate data, could be consistent with various interpretations. So like you say I don't know why Craig doesn't "treat these models as at least equally viable".
DeleteApart from Craig, I'm a little bit surprised by others who have plugged Swamidass' book. In fact, who have written positive blurbs which appear in his book. I could see Darrell Falk plugging it (which he does), but I was surprised by Hugh Ross, AJ Roberts, and Walter Bradley. Of course, as I trust you already know, the former two are from Reasons to Believe, while Bradley is a prominent ID proponent.
DeleteBut maybe I shouldn't be surprised, because I've admittedly never closely followed RTB and I haven't read much Bradley - instead primarily sticking to later ID proponents like Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Gauger, Axe - so I'm unaware of the details of their positions on (say) the historical Adam and Eve.
Behe tries to avoid interventionist language, and he even tries to argue that ontologically God could have done everything at the Big Bang by a giant "bank shot" so that there would be no intervention (God forbid) thereafter, but his position is that design is *detectable* in biology by rational means. Swamidass's is that, at least in biology, it is not.
ReplyDeleteThanks again, Lydia! Both comments very helpful to me. Much appreciated. :)
ReplyDeleteAlso, thanks for the head's up about Peaceful Science! I'll steer clear of them since I'm sure I wouldn't be very welcome there (since I'm very much in agreement with the whole ID project, e.g., Behe's irreducible complexity, Doug Axe).
Delete