YouTuber apologist Michael Jones is promoting theistic evolution: "Could there be design in evolution?"
Several issues:
1. The idea of theistic evolution has been kicking around since the 19C. The idea that evolution could be guided or directed is nothing new.
2. A fundamental issue is whether theistic evolution is consistent with Biblical revelation regarding the origin of life. Theistic evolutionists typically reduce Gen 2-3 to fiction.
3. Another issue is whether scientists even have a workable model of evolution.
4. A further issue is the relationship between theistic and evolution. Does evolution have the mechanisms to succeed on its own. Or does it require divine intervention to shore it up?
5. From what I've read, Jones is a metaphysical idealist. But you can't combine metaphysical idealism with belief in a physical external world with organic biological processes like evolution. Those are divergent paradigms. If reality is mental from top to bottom, then the the physical world is an illusion. A psychological projection.
“ But you can't combine metaphysical idealism with belief in a physical external world with organic biological processes like evolution. Those are divergent paradigms. If reality is mental from top to bottom, then the the physical world is an illusion. A psychological projection. ”
ReplyDeleteExactly, at best science for Berkeley was nothing more than a pragmatic way for human beings to get what they wanted from the world of sense impressions. Science didn’t really tell us anything about actual reality for Berkeley. It seems that any view that takes a theistic idealist line would be wedded to some sort of deep anti realism.
I watched Michael Jones' TED talk:
ReplyDelete1. Basically, Jones is regurgitating Simon Conway Morris (with a dash of BioLogos). Also, Jones isn't an expert on anything related to evolution. So why not just go straight to the source - Simon Conway Morris? Otherwise people are just getting (at best) a popularized version of Conway Morris.
Also, I notice Jones does this with other topics too. Such as quantum mechanics. Why not listen to a physicist instead?
Note this is different from a layperson giving an opinion on a particular topic. I don't have a problem with that. Indeed, I do that myself. Rather this is about learning about a topic from a layperson when it'd be better to learn about a topic from an expert. And at the very least Jones' TED talk is an attempt to educate people about theistic evolution primarily via Conway Morris' ideas.
2. Jones argues there's evidence for self-assembly or self-organization in the origin of life. However, not a few of the papers he cites are based on computer models. (Not to mention he cites a 40-year old paper from 1980, but I'll leave this aside.) How well do computer models play out in the real world? Consider our pandemic in which many models have been used and these models are quite arguably more realistic than models about the origin of life. And James Tour, for one, has addressed the arguments about the chemical origins of life (e.g. here).
3. Again, Jones presents Conway Morris' main idea in his TED talk. Conway Morris' main idea is that there are scientific laws or principles which have been built into the very fabric of nature itself. Nature is front-loaded or pre-hardwired with these scientific laws or principles. Scientific laws or principles which will yield similar results given similar preconditions. So, contrary to Stephen Jay Gould, if we "rewind the tape of life", then Conway Morris believes we would obtain similar results in the evolution of life because the evolution of life is "heavily constrained and directed" by these built-in scientific laws or principles. In this respect, the debate is over whether evolutionary history is contingent. And all this is evidenced by examples of convergent evolution throughout evolutionary history. That's Conway Morris' main idea.
a. I agree with a lot of what Conway Morris argues regarding convergent evolution. For example, I likewise use convergent evolution to argue against universal common descent or in some cases to argue for common design rather than common ancestry.
b. That said, a problem with Jones' use of convergent evolution, in and of itself, is it falls short of sufficient evidence for neo-Darwinism, but in his TED talk Jones seems to be using convergent evolution minimally as supporting evidence for neo-Darwinism. However Jones' use of convergent evolution isn't sufficient to establish neo-Darwinism. Perhaps Jones has more to say to make a full-blown case for neo-Darwinism, but if so, he doesn't do it in this TED talk.
c. Another problem in Jones' use of convergent evolution is one can find either more examples or less examples of convergent evolution depending on how finely grained or coarsely grained we wish to be with regard to common traits.
d. Still another problem in Jones' use of convergent evolution is the lack of reasonable differentiation or distinction between convergent evolution and parallel evolution.
4. And none of this deals with the most important matter of all - neo-Darwinism itself. There are many good reasons to be skeptical about neo-Darwinism, to say the least. One doesn't need to be religious. Indeed, look at secular scientists like Denis Noble and James Shapiro who doubt from key tenets in neo-Darwinism.
Neo-Darwinism should be rejected on completely scientific grounds.
ReplyDelete