How does Theodosius Dobzhanksy's creationism call into question (or make sense as a taunt) Coyne's standing among evolutionary biologists? If anything it would be the other way around.
After all it was Pieret who confidently asserted that a similar belief in god-guided human evolution made by another prominent scientist was certainly "not a truth claim ... especially not a scientific claim."
Maybe someone can explain how the accommmodationist mortal sin of mixing philosophy and science was avoided here.
How does Theodosius Dobzhanksy's creationism call into question (or make sense as a taunt) Coyne's standing among evolutionary biologists?
You've got it exactly backwards. It was Coyne who was calling into question the status of anyone who didn't accept his notions of "evolution as we biologists understand it". As far as I know, Coyne is an excellent biologist. According to him, however, Dobzhanksy apparently isn't.
Nor do I see how Dobzhanksy's statements about "creationism" (as he defines it) can be taken as a scientific claim. In the same way, I can't take Coyne's philosophical naturalism as a valid scientific claim either.
It was Coyne who was calling into question the status of anyone who didn't accept his notions of "evolution as we biologists understand it"
That's not evident in the passage of his you quoted. Evolution as biologists understand it does not include creationism...Dobzhanski's or any other version. Coyne was calling into question theistic evolution (creationism as it were) being promoted--or given a free pass--"as evolution as we biologists understand it," especially by organizations whose job it is to promote science, not ideology. You can easily show me I'm wrong by quoting Coyne somewhere saying AAAS or NCSE should accept his notions of philosophical naturalism.
There is hubris in deriding what you don't first comprehend.
Gillt: Dobzhansky was among the founders of the modern synthesis, thought of evolution as something that could â and for him did â allow divine involvement, and he rejected creationism in all but that broadest of all possible senses. Coyne's post seems to suggest that "evolution as we biologists understand it" excludes divine involvement in any sense, including theistic evolution. I took John Pieret's point to be that Coyne's sentence would read Dobzhansky out of the community of "we biologists" in a manner that's hard to justify, especially since Dobzhansky played a key role in defining how "we biologists" understand evolution. Coyne can and surely would argue that Dobzhansky's theological views on evolution were wrong, but he still has to acknowledge theistic evolution is within the range of ways "we biologists" understand evolution.
To put it better, what argumentation does Coyne have for saying that a key definitional component of the theory of evolution is that there is no divine intervention, as opposed to it being limited to "gradual change over time due to the influence of mutation, natural selection, and other factors"? If Dobzhansky is a biologist and clearly understands the theory of evolution and yet thinks that there being divine involvement is compatible with the theory -- whether or not he believes that that's what actually happened -- then there's some explaining to do if Coyne wants to argue that his understanding of biology is the one we have to go with as opposed to Dobzhansky's.
"Evolution as we biologists understand it" might best be summed up as what would be written about this topic in a peer reviewed review article in a scientific journal.
In that case, as in any other peer reviewed scientific piece, there is no discussion of divine intervention, not because we rule it out beforehand, but for the simple reason that we have not seen any evidence of it occurring and naturalistic explanations adequately fit the current evidence. An individual scientist may have their own religious views, some of which even including supernatural intervention in evolution, but if they choose to talk about this then they are stepping away from the scientific side of the discussion. They are not talking about what is scientifically accepted about evolution.
First, I can concede that view, but then say why should anyone care if that understanding is incompatible with religion. Yes, you won't be able to write it up in a scientific journal, but could certainly do it in a philosophical, theological or even sociological one and no one would bat an eye. If Coyne wants an interesting philosophical incompatibility or "being at odds", he really does have to worry about more than just the scientific journals; the philosophical ones, surely, would be of critical importance there. And if he doesn't care about an interesting philosophical incompatibility, then the paragraph, at least, seems a bit hollow.
Second, this:
" ... but for the simple reason that we have not seen any evidence of it occurring and naturalistic explanations adequately fit the current evidence. An individual scientist may have their own religious views, some of which even including supernatural intervention in evolution, but if they choose to talk about this then they are stepping away from the scientific side of the discussion. They are not talking about what is scientifically accepted about evolution."
Would seem to apply to any theories that talk about the view of evolution that are not generally accepted. But those surely are not against the scientific understanding of evolution in any way, and if said scientists wanted to give evidence that some sort of intervention is required it seems that those investigations and evidence would in fact count as scientific examination. Just because some scientists don't agree on all the details doesn't mean that they aren't both properly talking about evolution, which seems to be the contention here.
Again, what specifically do you have to accept to be, in fact, talking about the biological theory of evolution? Why should it include not thinking that there's any room for divine intervention?
"Evolution as we biologists understand it" might best be summed up as what would be written about this topic in a peer reviewed review article in a scientific journal.
That's exactly what it means. This was implied in my response since I assumed it went without saying among the somewhat science literate audience here.
And now I see where Josh and John went wrong in their interpretation (Additionally, in the quote John used Coyne was referring to science organizations and not individuals).
Gillt: I'm not sure what makes you more qualified to interpret the meaning of those sentences than John or I. We've both looked at the words in their context, and come to similar conclusions. You come to a different one, but it's a reading that simply doesn't make sense.
The quote in question does not refer to science organizations. "We biologists" speaks for itself as a reference to individuals, not organizations, and is absolutely not limited by context to the peer reviewed literature nor to official statements from biological societies. Maybe your meaning is what Jerry meant, but it simply isn't what he wrote, and that's all we can go on.
He wrote that "evolution as a materialistic, unguided process" is "evolution as we biologists understand it" and that it is also "the true biological view of evolution." But that isn't how all biologists, perhaps not even a majority of professional biologists, understand evolution. One could say that it's a fair description of how biologists, including Dobzhansky, see evolution in its scientific context, but to say "evolution as we biologists understand it" does not specify that we're only in a scientific context, and lots of biologists think evolution is guided on some untestable supernatural level. Dobzhansky is one good example, because not only was he instrumental in creating the modern evolutionary synthesis, literally helping define how "we biologists" understand evolution, but he is also a well-known advocate for theistic evolution, who explained his views in a peer-reviewed science education journal (the famous paper "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except In The Light of Evolution" was published in The American Biology Teacher).
...the quote in question does not refer to science organizations.
The quote in question refers to both Catholicism (as a religious organization interpreting current science) and NCSE (a science organization interpreting theology). Did you miss it or see it and ignore it or...?
I thought the meaning was clear but I suppose one could argue over what Coyne meant by "we biologists." The fact that John found an exception to the general rule is really just that.
"We biologists" speaks for itself as a reference to individuals, not organizations, and is absolutely not limited by context to the peer reviewed literature nor to official statements from biological societies.
It's very clear to me and apparently Sigmund that Coyne is referring to the consensus view. When someone says most scientists, such as most scientists say anthropogenic global warming exists, I take it to mean that that person is referring to a consensus in the literature and not some range of opinion (most of all one persons!) on whether god is working mysteriously through coal companies to melt those ice caps.
...but to say "evolution as we biologists understand it" does not specify that we're only in a scientific context,
Yes, yes it does! "We biologists" places the topic, evolution, into an obvious "scientific context."
lots of biologists think evolution is guided on some untestable supernatural level.
Really. Lots? Is that meant to be read as a consensus or a significant minority of biologists' religious views? Anyway, it's not currently a part of the scientific understanding of the concept; supernatural evolution has been considered and it is a failed hypothesis right now.
When you encounter the phrase "what we biologists believe," do you not detect the implication that those who believe otherwise are not true biologists? Especially when the phrase "the true biological view" appears in the next sentence?
Coyne may not have Dobzhansky (or R.A. Fisher, or Alfred Wallace) in mind when he calls theistic evolution "anti-science," but that's his cross to bear. The argument (here) is not over whether theistic evolution is correct, but whether those that embrace it should be excluded from consideration as "true" biologists--even after developing the very modern synthesis that Coyne means to defend the doctrinal purity of!
Gillt: I don't see how a paragraph that begins by discussing the Catholic Church's position on evolution can be said to be focused on the scientific context. "We biologists" is either a change of subject or â more plausibly â an attempt at discussing the broader context of how scientists consider evolution. And as Ecklund and others have shown, a significant number of natural scientists are religious, and some significant fraction of them (probably almost all of that substantial minority) will be some version of theistic evolutionist. That, by the way, is what I meant by "lots."
"We biologists" does not read to me as a claim about consensus in the scientific literature. It's a comment about people. If the intent was to talk consensus, the way to express that is "the biological literature" or "the scientific consensus of biologists." But contrast Catholic views on evolution â which accept evolutionary theory as valid so long as metaphysical claims about the soul are not grafted on â with scientific consensus would be an obvious goalpost shift.
Because here's the thing. I don't doubt that Ken Miller or Dobzhansky would agree with Coyne's language about an unguided process as a description of their scientific views on evolution. But they'd draw a distinction between saying that evolution is unguided by phenomena science can study and evolution being guided by a supernatural force that science can't study. And I'd wager that a significant fraction of biologists would agree. Which is to say that there's a consensus among biologists on the scientific understanding of evolution, but not on the broader metaphysical understanding.
It would be wrong and misleading to try to conflate those two, and it would be wrong to read one of the founders of the modern synthesis out of the community of biologists just to defend a claim of consensus on the broader metaphysical context (which is what Coyne was talking about).
There is a consensus among biologists of what, at it's bare minimum, evolution entails: a naturalistic, unguided process. To deny this or add a supernatural or unknowable component to it is literally speaking creationism.
I will not defend Coyne's word choice but my interpretation of his intent. I Think Coyne was making the point that just because an organization says it accepts evolution doesn't mean it accepts just evolution and not one more thing it thinks important.
Please don't quote Ecklund. Her conflation of terms and misinterpretation of her own collected data as to who qualifies as spiritual and religious borders on intentional.
It's perfectly reasonable to interpret "we biologists" as a shorter, less-formal, bloggier/personal version of your ponderous "the scientific consensus of biologists."
But contrast Catholic views on evolution â which accept evolutionary theory as valid so long as metaphysical claims about the soul are not[sic] grafted on â with scientific consensus would be an obvious goalpost shift.
It's not goal-post shifting but a comparison between evolution as it's properly understood "true" and the metaphysical salvaging of man's lofty place in the universe that is the Catholic version. Coyne should have gone further and noted that by placing man apart from the rest, if only metaphysically, challenges the notion of common descent.
and it would be wrong to read one of the founders of the modern synthesis out of the community of biologists just to defend a claim of consensus on the broader metaphysical context (which is what Coyne was talking about).
You and John are faulting Coyne for not saying something you think he should have addressed. Then you taunt him for it. The context of his post was NCSE and other science organizations. Not individuals. It's a distinction you fail to recognize.
There is a consensus among biologists of what, at its bare minimum, evolution entails: a naturalistic, unguided process.
To the extent this is true, it does not exclude theistic evolution of the type embraced by Dobzhansky, Fisher, Ayala, Wallace, Miller, and many more. Nor does it exclude the official Catholic position on evolution.
John and Josh's point is that if you want to define "naturalistic unguided process" in a way that it *does* exclude, say, Miller and Ayala, you have to also exclude Dobzhansky, Wallace and Fisher, who would no more be part of this "consensus" than Pope John Paul II.
To deny this or add a supernatural or unknowable component to it is literally speaking creationism.
And Dobzhansky was quite open about this, writing that he was "a creationist and an evolutionist," and that "It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives."
If he were alive today it would be perfectly legitimate for Coyne to argue with him about the relationship of evolution and naturalism, but you can be assured you wouldn't hear any talk about "the way we biologists understand evolution."
To the extent this is true, it does not exclude theistic evolution of the type embraced by Dobzhansky, Fisher, Ayala, Wallace, Miller, and many more. Nor does it exclude the official Catholic position on evolution.
How in the world do you figure naturalistic and unguided does not exclude guided by the supernatural?
John and Josh's point is that if you want to define "naturalistic unguided process" in a way that it *does* exclude, say, Miller and Ayala, you have to also exclude Dobzhansky, Wallace and Fisher, who would no more be part of this "consensus" than Pope John Paul II.
Grace us then with this alternative definition of evolution that you and Josh and John all have in mind. Implying I'm doing it wrong without a correction isn't helping.
If he were alive today it would be perfectly legitimate for Coyne to argue with him about the relationship of evolution and naturalism, but you can be assured you wouldn't hear any talk about "the way we biologists understand evolution."
This isn't a question of how you or I would reconcile theism and evolution. That's not the point of John's original post. The question is whether a theistic biologist is a "true" evolutionist, even though she may contextualize evolution within a different metaphysics than you or I or Jerry Coyne.
The fact (which I don't think you dispute) is that several of the fathers of the modern synthesis did not embrace the kind of naturalism that Coyne claims is essential for the proper understanding of evolution. That's it. If strict metaphysical naturalism is essential for consideration as a practitioner of "true" biology, then Fisher and Dobzhansky were not true biologists. If theistic evolution is anti-science, then Fisher and Dobzhansky were anti-science.
...even though she may contextualize evolution within a different metaphysics than you or I or Jerry Coyne.
Evolution belongs to science, so science is its context. Creationism is illogical and is flawed science. Do you find that controversial?
What part of this logic do you quibble with?
You conflating two separate points, obviously.
Where have I said metaphysical naturalism is a prerequisite to being a good practitioner of biology? There is a minority of religious biologists and no reason to think they aren't decent scientists. The separate point is one I would argue and that is evolution has a definition that does not include theism. Theism is an addition and a false and unnecessary one. If Dobzhansky (I have every reason to be optimistic that this eminent scientist would have changed his mind in light of advances in evolutionary biology made after his death.) or Miller or Collins want to make god of the gap arguments and call it creationism or Intelligent Design or theistic evolution fine, but there is a consensus view among biologists of what evolution is and is not, and miracles would classify as not part of evolutionary theory. You could do worse than review the Dover Trial and it's distinction between ID and science.
It seems like he quibbles with the distinction between "evolution" and "metaphysical naturalism". His definition of "evolution" includes metaphysical naturalism as "evolution has a definition that does not include theism. Theism is an addition and a false and unnecessary one"
This is prima facie contradictory. Either "evolution" is a scientific theory and the metaphysics within which you accept that theory is irrelevant as long as you accept it correctly, or "evolution" is a scientific theory that contains or is contained by metaphysical naturalism, and you can only correctly accept evolution if you also accept metaphysical naturalism.
"Theism is an addition and a false and unnecessary one"
This is really the key phrase. Theism is an addition. It's certainly unecessary, and it may also be false. So is atheism. The theory of evolution does not reveal that a God does not exist any more than it reveals that a God does exist.
Whatever non-evolution related metaphysical belief you hold, atheist, theist or other is irrelevant to evolution. He also thinks that theism is false and has been fooled by this into thinking that somehow evolution is related to this point of view. It's not. Evolution does not speak about metaphysics, it's absurd to mix them up.
" If Dobzhansky (I have every reason to be optimistic that this eminent scientist would have changed his mind in light of advances in evolutionary biology made after his death.)"
What advances, specifically? What do you think has been discovered that would have made Dobzhansky realise that evolution and theism are not compatible? Because, being a theory about mechanism for the descent of species, and not a metaphysical theory it seems unlikely that recent advances would have had a jot to do with theism.
Whatever non-evolution related metaphysical belief you hold, atheist, theist or other is irrelevant to evolution. He also thinks that theism is false and has been fooled by this into thinking that somehow evolution is related to this point of view. It's not. Evolution does not speak about metaphysics, it's absurd to mix them up.
Yes, evolution is irrelevant to the 'isms. That I find theism unnecessary and false is my interpretation based in part on common descent, among other things.
What advances, specifically?
I'm confident that the Human Genome Project, Endogenous retroviruses, Junk DNA, genome size, and Richard Lenski's work with E. coli to name a few would have caused him to rethink his concept of divine intervention and design and I'm optimistic that it would have lead to him backing-off creationism.
How does Theodosius Dobzhanksy's creationism call into question (or make sense as a taunt) Coyne's standing among evolutionary biologists? If anything it would be the other way around.
After all it was Pieret who confidently asserted that a similar belief in god-guided human evolution made by another prominent scientist was certainly "not a truth claim ... especially not a scientific claim."
Maybe someone can explain how the accommmodationist mortal sin of mixing philosophy and science was avoided here.
Pieret's post is a textbook example of an ad hominem argument. How typical.
dexitroboper: No, it's a classic example of disproof by counterexample.
To all those people criticizing Newton's forays into alchemy: So, you think you're a better physicist than Isaac Newton? What unbelievable hubris.
How does Theodosius Dobzhanksy's creationism call into question (or make sense as a taunt) Coyne's standing among evolutionary biologists?
You've got it exactly backwards. It was Coyne who was calling into question the status of anyone who didn't accept his notions of "evolution as we biologists understand it". As far as I know, Coyne is an excellent biologist. According to him, however, Dobzhanksy apparently isn't.
Nor do I see how Dobzhanksy's statements about "creationism" (as he defines it) can be taken as a scientific claim. In the same way, I can't take Coyne's philosophical naturalism as a valid scientific claim either.
That's not evident in the passage of his you quoted. Evolution as biologists understand it does not include creationism...Dobzhanski's or any other version. Coyne was calling into question theistic evolution (creationism as it were) being promoted--or given a free pass--"as evolution as we biologists understand it," especially by organizations whose job it is to promote science, not ideology. You can easily show me I'm wrong by quoting Coyne somewhere saying AAAS or NCSE should accept his notions of philosophical naturalism.
There is hubris in deriding what you don't first comprehend.
Gillt: Dobzhansky was among the founders of the modern synthesis, thought of evolution as something that could â and for him did â allow divine involvement, and he rejected creationism in all but that broadest of all possible senses. Coyne's post seems to suggest that "evolution as we biologists understand it" excludes divine involvement in any sense, including theistic evolution. I took John Pieret's point to be that Coyne's sentence would read Dobzhansky out of the community of "we biologists" in a manner that's hard to justify, especially since Dobzhansky played a key role in defining how "we biologists" understand evolution. Coyne can and surely would argue that Dobzhansky's theological views on evolution were wrong, but he still has to acknowledge theistic evolution is within the range of ways "we biologists" understand evolution.
To put it better, what argumentation does Coyne have for saying that a key definitional component of the theory of evolution is that there is no divine intervention, as opposed to it being limited to "gradual change over time due to the influence of mutation, natural selection, and other factors"? If Dobzhansky is a biologist and clearly understands the theory of evolution and yet thinks that there being divine involvement is compatible with the theory -- whether or not he believes that that's what actually happened -- then there's some explaining to do if Coyne wants to argue that his understanding of biology is the one we have to go with as opposed to Dobzhansky's.
"Evolution as we biologists understand it" might best be summed up as what would be written about this topic in a peer reviewed review article in a scientific journal.
In that case, as in any other peer reviewed scientific piece, there is no discussion of divine intervention, not because we rule it out beforehand, but for the simple reason that we have not seen any evidence of it occurring and naturalistic explanations adequately fit the current evidence. An individual scientist may have their own religious views, some of which even including supernatural intervention in evolution, but if they choose to talk about this then they are stepping away from the scientific side of the discussion. They are not talking about what is scientifically accepted about evolution.
Sigmund,
A couple of points:
First, I can concede that view, but then say why should anyone care if that understanding is incompatible with religion. Yes, you won't be able to write it up in a scientific journal, but could certainly do it in a philosophical, theological or even sociological one and no one would bat an eye. If Coyne wants an interesting philosophical incompatibility or "being at odds", he really does have to worry about more than just the scientific journals; the philosophical ones, surely, would be of critical importance there. And if he doesn't care about an interesting philosophical incompatibility, then the paragraph, at least, seems a bit hollow.
Second, this:
" ... but for the simple reason that we have not seen any evidence of it occurring and naturalistic explanations adequately fit the current evidence. An individual scientist may have their own religious views, some of which even including supernatural intervention in evolution, but if they choose to talk about this then they are stepping away from the scientific side of the discussion. They are not talking about what is scientifically accepted about evolution."
Would seem to apply to any theories that talk about the view of evolution that are not generally accepted. But those surely are not against the scientific understanding of evolution in any way, and if said scientists wanted to give evidence that some sort of intervention is required it seems that those investigations and evidence would in fact count as scientific examination. Just because some scientists don't agree on all the details doesn't mean that they aren't both properly talking about evolution, which seems to be the contention here.
Again, what specifically do you have to accept to be, in fact, talking about the biological theory of evolution? Why should it include not thinking that there's any room for divine intervention?
That's exactly what it means. This was implied in my response since I assumed it went without saying among the somewhat science literate audience here.
And now I see where Josh and John went wrong in their interpretation (Additionally, in the quote John used Coyne was referring to science organizations and not individuals).
Gillt: I'm not sure what makes you more qualified to interpret the meaning of those sentences than John or I. We've both looked at the words in their context, and come to similar conclusions. You come to a different one, but it's a reading that simply doesn't make sense.
The quote in question does not refer to science organizations. "We biologists" speaks for itself as a reference to individuals, not organizations, and is absolutely not limited by context to the peer reviewed literature nor to official statements from biological societies. Maybe your meaning is what Jerry meant, but it simply isn't what he wrote, and that's all we can go on.
He wrote that "evolution as a materialistic, unguided process" is "evolution as we biologists understand it" and that it is also "the true biological view of evolution." But that isn't how all biologists, perhaps not even a majority of professional biologists, understand evolution. One could say that it's a fair description of how biologists, including Dobzhansky, see evolution in its scientific context, but to say "evolution as we biologists understand it" does not specify that we're only in a scientific context, and lots of biologists think evolution is guided on some untestable supernatural level. Dobzhansky is one good example, because not only was he instrumental in creating the modern evolutionary synthesis, literally helping define how "we biologists" understand evolution, but he is also a well-known advocate for theistic evolution, who explained his views in a peer-reviewed science education journal (the famous paper "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except In The Light of Evolution" was published in The American Biology Teacher).
The quote in question refers to both Catholicism (as a religious organization interpreting current science) and NCSE (a science organization interpreting theology). Did you miss it or see it and ignore it or...?
I thought the meaning was clear but I suppose one could argue over what Coyne meant by "we biologists." The fact that John found an exception to the general rule is really just that.
It's very clear to me and apparently Sigmund that Coyne is referring to the consensus view. When someone says most scientists, such as most scientists say anthropogenic global warming exists, I take it to mean that that person is referring to a consensus in the literature and not some range of opinion (most of all one persons!) on whether god is working mysteriously through coal companies to melt those ice caps.
Yes, yes it does! "We biologists" places the topic, evolution, into an obvious "scientific context."
Really. Lots? Is that meant to be read as a consensus or a significant minority of biologists' religious views? Anyway, it's not currently a part of the scientific understanding of the concept; supernatural evolution has been considered and it is a failed hypothesis right now.
Gillt,
When you encounter the phrase "what we biologists believe," do you not detect the implication that those who believe otherwise are not true biologists? Especially when the phrase "the true biological view" appears in the next sentence?
Coyne may not have Dobzhansky (or R.A. Fisher, or Alfred Wallace) in mind when he calls theistic evolution "anti-science," but that's his cross to bear. The argument (here) is not over whether theistic evolution is correct, but whether those that embrace it should be excluded from consideration as "true" biologists--even after developing the very modern synthesis that Coyne means to defend the doctrinal purity of!
Gillt: I don't see how a paragraph that begins by discussing the Catholic Church's position on evolution can be said to be focused on the scientific context. "We biologists" is either a change of subject or â more plausibly â an attempt at discussing the broader context of how scientists consider evolution. And as Ecklund and others have shown, a significant number of natural scientists are religious, and some significant fraction of them (probably almost all of that substantial minority) will be some version of theistic evolutionist. That, by the way, is what I meant by "lots."
"We biologists" does not read to me as a claim about consensus in the scientific literature. It's a comment about people. If the intent was to talk consensus, the way to express that is "the biological literature" or "the scientific consensus of biologists." But contrast Catholic views on evolution â which accept evolutionary theory as valid so long as metaphysical claims about the soul are not grafted on â with scientific consensus would be an obvious goalpost shift.
Because here's the thing. I don't doubt that Ken Miller or Dobzhansky would agree with Coyne's language about an unguided process as a description of their scientific views on evolution. But they'd draw a distinction between saying that evolution is unguided by phenomena science can study and evolution being guided by a supernatural force that science can't study. And I'd wager that a significant fraction of biologists would agree. Which is to say that there's a consensus among biologists on the scientific understanding of evolution, but not on the broader metaphysical understanding.
It would be wrong and misleading to try to conflate those two, and it would be wrong to read one of the founders of the modern synthesis out of the community of biologists just to defend a claim of consensus on the broader metaphysical context (which is what Coyne was talking about).
There is a consensus among biologists of what, at it's bare minimum, evolution entails: a naturalistic, unguided process. To deny this or add a supernatural or unknowable component to it is literally speaking creationism.
I will not defend Coyne's word choice but my interpretation of his intent. I Think Coyne was making the point that just because an organization says it accepts evolution doesn't mean it accepts just evolution and not one more thing it thinks important.
Please don't quote Ecklund. Her conflation of terms and misinterpretation of her own collected data as to who qualifies as spiritual and religious borders on intentional.
It's perfectly reasonable to interpret "we biologists" as a shorter, less-formal, bloggier/personal version of your ponderous "the scientific consensus of biologists."
It's not goal-post shifting but a comparison between evolution as it's properly understood "true" and the metaphysical salvaging of man's lofty place in the universe that is the Catholic version. Coyne should have gone further and noted that by placing man apart from the rest, if only metaphysically, challenges the notion of common descent.
You and John are faulting Coyne for not saying something you think he should have addressed. Then you taunt him for it. The context of his post was NCSE and other science organizations. Not individuals. It's a distinction you fail to recognize.
There is a consensus among biologists of what, at its bare minimum, evolution entails: a naturalistic, unguided process.
To the extent this is true, it does not exclude theistic evolution of the type embraced by Dobzhansky, Fisher, Ayala, Wallace, Miller, and many more. Nor does it exclude the official Catholic position on evolution.
John and Josh's point is that if you want to define "naturalistic unguided process" in a way that it *does* exclude, say, Miller and Ayala, you have to also exclude Dobzhansky, Wallace and Fisher, who would no more be part of this "consensus" than Pope John Paul II.
To deny this or add a supernatural or unknowable component to it is literally speaking creationism.
And Dobzhansky was quite open about this, writing that he was "a creationist and an evolutionist," and that "It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives."
If he were alive today it would be perfectly legitimate for Coyne to argue with him about the relationship of evolution and naturalism, but you can be assured you wouldn't hear any talk about "the way we biologists understand evolution."
How in the world do you figure naturalistic and unguided does not exclude guided by the supernatural?
Grace us then with this alternative definition of evolution that you and Josh and John all have in mind. Implying I'm doing it wrong without a correction isn't helping.
More hypothetical taunting!
Gillt,
This isn't a question of how you or I would reconcile theism and evolution. That's not the point of John's original post. The question is whether a theistic biologist is a "true" evolutionist, even though she may contextualize evolution within a different metaphysics than you or I or Jerry Coyne.
The fact (which I don't think you dispute) is that several of the fathers of the modern synthesis did not embrace the kind of naturalism that Coyne claims is essential for the proper understanding of evolution. That's it. If strict metaphysical naturalism is essential for consideration as a practitioner of "true" biology, then Fisher and Dobzhansky were not true biologists. If theistic evolution is anti-science, then Fisher and Dobzhansky were anti-science.
What part of this logic do you quibble with?
How could I have missed the point of a taunt.
Evolution belongs to science, so science is its context. Creationism is illogical and is flawed science. Do you find that controversial?
You conflating two separate points, obviously.
Where have I said metaphysical naturalism is a prerequisite to being a good practitioner of biology? There is a minority of religious biologists and no reason to think they aren't decent scientists. The separate point is one I would argue and that is evolution has a definition that does not include theism. Theism is an addition and a false and unnecessary one. If Dobzhansky (I have every reason to be optimistic that this eminent scientist would have changed his mind in light of advances in evolutionary biology made after his death.) or Miller or Collins want to make god of the gap arguments and call it creationism or Intelligent Design or theistic evolution fine, but there is a consensus view among biologists of what evolution is and is not, and miracles would classify as not part of evolutionary theory. You could do worse than review the Dover Trial and it's distinction between ID and science.
"What part of this logic do you quibble with?"
It seems like he quibbles with the distinction between "evolution" and "metaphysical naturalism". His definition of "evolution" includes metaphysical naturalism as "evolution has a definition that does not include theism. Theism is an addition and a false and unnecessary one"
This is prima facie contradictory. Either "evolution" is a scientific theory and the metaphysics within which you accept that theory is irrelevant as long as you accept it correctly, or "evolution" is a scientific theory that contains or is contained by metaphysical naturalism, and you can only correctly accept evolution if you also accept metaphysical naturalism.
"Theism is an addition and a false and unnecessary one"
This is really the key phrase. Theism is an addition. It's certainly unecessary, and it may also be false. So is atheism. The theory of evolution does not reveal that a God does not exist any more than it reveals that a God does exist.
Whatever non-evolution related metaphysical belief you hold, atheist, theist or other is irrelevant to evolution. He also thinks that theism is false and has been fooled by this into thinking that somehow evolution is related to this point of view. It's not. Evolution does not speak about metaphysics, it's absurd to mix them up.
" If Dobzhansky (I have every reason to be optimistic that this eminent scientist would have changed his mind in light of advances in evolutionary biology made after his death.)"
What advances, specifically? What do you think has been discovered that would have made Dobzhansky realise that evolution and theism are not compatible? Because, being a theory about mechanism for the descent of species, and not a metaphysical theory it seems unlikely that recent advances would have had a jot to do with theism.
Yes, evolution is irrelevant to the 'isms. That I find theism unnecessary and false is my interpretation based in part on common descent, among other things.
I'm confident that the Human Genome Project, Endogenous retroviruses, Junk DNA, genome size, and Richard Lenski's work with E. coli to name a few would have caused him to rethink his concept of divine intervention and design and I'm optimistic that it would have lead to him backing-off creationism.