Thursday, April 8, 2010

Bruce Waltke and the Scientific Orthodoxy

Bruce Waltke, a Professor of Old Testament, has parted ways with Reformed Theological Seminary, perhaps due to controversies over his sympathies with evolution. Rod Dreher at BeliefNet worries that this is a dangerous disregard for science:


it is all but incomprehensible that in 2010, any American scholar, particularly one of his academic distinction, could be so harshly bullied for stating an opinion consonant with current scientific orthodoxy.

I hope we can all agree with Dreher's opposition to bullying. But what about Dreher's and Waltke's high regard for "current scientific orthodoxy"?

Can we no longer confront the data on our own? Must we have evolutionists dictate the message? If only Waltke was familiar with the current scientific data, rather than the current scientific orthodoxy.

This deference to scientific orthodoxy is a consistent theme. From textbooks to church sermons it is a convenient way around the science. Imagine appealing to the "current scientific orthodoxy" to promote blood-letting or alchemy. Nonetheless, textbooks now routinely inform students that scientists now believe evolution is a fact, rather than explain just why it is evolutionists believe this. That would be rather awkward.

25 comments:

  1. When did orthodoxy become a bad word? Science is a conservative enterprise. Its current theories have been thoroughly tested, so it would take a lot of effort to overthrow a reigning paradigm and replace it with a new one. That's how it's supposed to be.

    It's ironic to hear grumbling about orthodoxy from someone teaching at one of the most conservative Christian university. It's the sound of the pot calling the kettle black.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr Hunter,

    There you go with the quotes again.

    Which "textbooks" were you quoting when you used quotation marks for "Scientists now believe evolution is a fact,"?

    Or was that just you paraphrasing?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oleg,

    "Its current theories have been thoroughly tested."

    I would like to see the experiment were a scientist in a lab conducted an experiment which genuinely evolved one creature into another. I am not talking about a bacteria to bacteria change, a real evolution. I would very much appreciate finding out about that. Until such experimental evidence is presented evolution is merely an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

    "grumbling about orthodoxy"

    I thought the search for knowledge involve critical analysis. Are you trying to stifle dissent?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Surely Dr. Hunter is not "grumbling" about (capital 'O') orthodoxy but merely noting that "the standard i.e. 'orthodox' belief and stated position is that the theory of evolution has now "evolved" in the minds of many to the position that it is a "FACT" and so much is this so that our theology must be tested against this "fact' and changed dramatically. See, for example, Karl Giberson's Saving Darwin as a good example of just such a position.
    Dr. Hunter would like us all, Bruce Waltke included, to examine the scientific data carefully before changing our previously held theology. Just because Francis Collins, Dennis Alexander, Karl Giberson claim that Neo-Darwinian Evolution is a FACT, does not mean that the rest of us should treat it as beyond examination or change our theology to deny the original goodness of creation, the fall of humans and nature, among many long-held standard (orthodox) theological positions.

    Dr. Hunter

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter:

    The other problem with claiming that a theory has been thoroughly tested is what is meant by the word "tested".

    Does it mean that the theory has been tested by direct experiments in the laboratory (or field)?

    Or does it mean that the theory has been tested against competing explanations and has been found to be the best of all possible explanations?

    The latter test is, of course, the one that applies to the historical sciences such as the theory of evolution. As Stephen Meyer explains in Signature in the Cell this was Darwin's and Lyell's method of reasoning.

    With two quite different approaches to arriving at an explanation, I am never quite sure what a writer has in mind when he uses the phrase "thoroughly tested". I assume he means laboratory testing, but then this can confirm only micro-evolution at best.

    And Ralph Seelke and Michael Behe have raised doubts about what can acually be accomplished by micro-evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  6. TP:

    " Which "textbooks" were you quoting when you used quotation marks for "Scientists now believe evolution is a fact,"? "

    Examples:

    "Most scientists think life first evolved in these oceans and ..."

    "Most scientists think that life on Earth developed through natural chemical and physical processes."

    "Most biologists think that mitochondria and chloroplasts originated as described by the theory of endosymbiosis."

    "Scientists think RNA formed before DNA ..."

    "Scientists think that the first cells may have developed from microspheres."

    "Today, almost all scientists accept that evolution is the basis for the diversity of life on Earth."

    Johnson & Raven, *Biology*, (Holt)

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Most scientists think life first evolved in these oceans and ..."

    Seems reasonable given the fossil record, and the wet nature of cellular life. Note the use of

    "Most scientists think". A thought is not a fact. It is not punishable orthodoxy.

    An example: Most Muslims think Jesus was a prophet, but not the son of God, is not an endorsement of that belief, nor a enforcement of Muslim orthodoxy. It reports a fact-what most Muslims believe.

    "Most scientists think that life on Earth developed through natural chemical and physical processes."

    I actually don't like the phrasing, but most scientists do think that, don't they?

    "Most biologists think that mitochondria and chloroplasts originated as described by the theory of endosymbiosis."

    Again, 'most think'

    "Scientists think RNA formed before DNA ..."
    "Scientists think that the first cells may have developed from microspheres."

    I see we've lost the 'most.' Probably justified.

    ""Today, almost all scientists accept that evolution is the basis for the diversity of life on Earth."

    Almost all do.

    I'm willing to bet these isolated sentences come with discussion of the data, a bibliography and references for further reading.

    I find it hilarious that on a thread discussing the resignation/firing of a professor for daring to consider evolution (against the rigid fundamentalist orthodoxy) that the best Dr. Hunter can do to substantiate his claim are a few quotes saying what scientists 'think.'

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dr. Hunter,

    So you are paraphrasing, then?

    Quotation marks around phrases tend to lead readers into thinking you are quoting something verbatim.

    For example, here is a verbatim quote from Michael Behe...

    "To a surprising extent prevailing evolutionary theory and intelligent design are harmonious. Both agree that the universe and life unfolded over vast ages; both agree that species could follow species in the common descent of life."

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3DQAQDPU73HPH

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thought Provoker:

    "So you are paraphrasing, then?"

    Fixed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cornelius: "Can we no longer confront the data on our own? Must we have evolutionists dictate the message? If only Waltke was familiar with the current scientific data, rather than the current scientific orthodoxy."

    Well, nobody is stopping you from "confronting the data" and I suppose in your mind that's probably what you think you are doing on this blog. You obviously expend quite a lot of effort on this blog (just about one post per day). I imagine you have a lot of spare time on your hands! Perhaps that time would be better spent writing a couple of solid scientific papers - perhaps papers that can elucidate and enumerate the scientific data you think is missing from the debate?

    But I still think that until you are prepared to offer an alternative and coherent explanatory framework - rather than just the constant nitpickng of the orthodox one - you are unlikely to make much progress (although admittedly your blog has become something of a curious sideshow on the Internet).

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's always interesting to read through a thread like this to see where (and how) the critics take something. The theory of macro-evolution has cleared evolved (no pun intended) into a position that is more propped up by "scientific orthodoxy" than actual scientific evidence/testing. It's all about the belief system of macro-evolution. It's a belief system because clear evidence simply does not exist and yet mainstream biologists insist it is a FACT. Sounds like faith to me. To claim otherwise is, at best, disengenuous.

    Now if someone can point me towards anything that clearly demonstrates that random, chance mutations acted upon by natural selection alone has *observably* accomplished *anything* complex and specific enough to justify a certain belief in macro-evolution, I'm all eyes and ears. As previously stated in this thread, there is growing doubt about the extent to which random, chance mutations and natural selection alone can produce micro-evolution as well.

    The macro-evolutionists have become like all fundamentalist in that they steadfastly believe that which they cannot prove and proceed to heap all kinds of disdain and disrespect on anyone that dares to question their faith.

    We have a truly delicious role reversal at work here.

    The macro-evolutionists are making an inference based largely on their traditions, their world view, and their philosophical leanings. Given what we know about bio-chemistry and the specific complexity, diversity, and interdependence displayed in biology, design is simply the *better* inference.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Doublee: The other problem with claiming that a theory has been thoroughly tested is what is meant by the word "tested".

    In science, it generally means hypothesis-testing. That is, you propose a tentative explanation, determine its entailed empirical consequences, then test them. A well-constructed hypothesis will entail predictions that are specific and distinguishing. For example,

    According to Newton's Laws, if the Earth is rotating, then it should bulge at the equator. That means the surface of the Earth at the equator will be farther from the Earth's center of gravity than at higher latitudes. If it is farther from the Earth's center, then the force of gravity will be less, and a pendulum should swing a bit slower. Sir Edmund Halley confirmed the retardation of the pendulum in 1677 on St. Helena.

    The retardation can also give a first-order approximation of the Earth's oblation, which can then be compared to other measurements of the Earth's surface.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mike: Now if someone can point me towards anything that clearly demonstrates that random, chance mutations acted upon by natural selection alone has *observably* accomplished *anything* complex and specific enough to justify a certain belief in macro-evolution, I'm all eyes and ears.

    The evidence for Common Descent shows that organisms have evolved in steps from more primitive forms. We have examples of many transitions where we can show that the changes are selectable. In the case of the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, not only are the changes selectable, but the end result is irreducibly complex.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dr. Hunter,

    Thank you for making the clarification to the opening post. I must say I hadn't heard of Bruce Waltke prior to this, so I did some looking into it and found this on Biologos...

    "Two years ago a Pew Forum poll concluded that only about 25% of evangelicals believe in evolution, and only 10% believe that evolution occurred through natural selection. Given this state of affairs, academics who work in evangelical institutions put their careers on the line if they accept the scientific data that God created through natural selection. When the church as a whole thinks so differently about something so important, it takes courage to present a view that challenges the status quo.

    Bruce Waltke is a person of courage.

    Bruce has long been one of evangelicalism’s most respected Old Testament scholars. His 2007 Old Testament Theology textbook was an exercise in courage. In it he clearly lays out the basis for his belief in theistic evolution. Consider this excerpt from his book:

    In my view—certainly not the view of all scientists––the best harmonious synthesis of the special revelation of the Bible, … and of science is by the theory of theistic evolution, not by insisting on a woodenly literal interpretation. By ‘theory,’ I mean here ‘a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for the origin of species, especially adam,’ not “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural. By ‘theistic evolution’ I mean that the God of Israel, to bring glory to himself, (1) created all things that are out of nothing and sustains them; (2) incredibly, against the laws of probability, finely tuned the essential properties of the universe to produce ‘adam …(3) within his providence allowed the process of natural selection and of cataclysmic interventions … to produce awe-inspiring creatures, especially ‘adam; (4) by direct creation made ’adam a spiritual being, an image of divine beings, for fellowship with himself by faith; (5) allowed ’adam to freely choose to follow their primitive animal nature and to usurp the rule of God instead of living by faith in God, losing fellowship with their … Creator; (6) and in his mercy chose from fallen ‘adam the Israel of God, whom he regenerated by the Holy Spirit, in connection with their faith in Jesus Christ, the Second Adam, for fellowship with himself.”
    –– pp. 202-203 of An Old Testament Theology.


    So we have learned theologians like Bruce Waltke and scientists like Michael Behe who feel there is compelling reason to accept common descent and natural selection as being supported by the evidence.

    However, you imply such support can only be due to dogmatic allegiance to "current scientific orthodoxy" so you can argue it is the stone throwers who follow your Group Think leadership to refuse offering hypotheses and eschewing details are those who best understand the scientific data.

    If you want to promote independent thinking then provide some of your own ideas instead of just tearing down everybody else's.

    Now, would you like to talk about ideas like the absence of randomness because God could be working through Quantum Mechanics?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Zach said:
    "The evidence for Common Descent shows that organisms have evolved in steps from more primitive forms. We have examples of many transitions where we can show that the changes are selectable. In the case of the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, not only are the changes selectable, but the end result is irreducibly complex."

    And you think this evidence is the same level as the measurement of the pendulum retardation at St Elena?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kindly send us your requirement so that we can quote to you our best prices

    This must be a sign, Dr. Hunter. Here is somewhere you can get your laboratory glassware at excellent prices. Time to start experimenting to falsify those Darwinian hypotheses.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Blas: And you think this evidence is the same level as the measurement of the pendulum retardation at St Elena?

    The question was what is meant by testing in science: hypothesis-testing.

    For instance, if whales descended from terrestrial vertebrates, then there should be intermediate forms. From previously discovered evidence, we would expect those transitionals to have lived about 40 million years ago. There are exposed strata of that age in the Egyptian wastelands, so a scientist might mount an expedition to that region to look evidence. The scientist might even find cetaceans with hind limbs (along with other significant intermediate and derived features).

    Being able to predict the retardation of the pendulum is a prediction from theory. This result can be added and compared to other such observations, such as other means of measuring the Earth's oblateness, allowing scientists to build confidence in the theory, expand their knowledge, while giving direction to future research. Being able to predict the characteristics of heretofore unknown species is a prediction from theory. These results can be compared to other findings, allowing scientists to build confidence in the theory and related history, expand their knowledge, while giving direction to future research. This is something ID just never gets arounds to doing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Zachriel...
    Let's take one example of an experiment to confirm or disconfirm an prediction of ID. One prediction is that there will be irreducibly complex systems in biology. It is well-known (Dover trial testimony) that Scott Minnich performed gene knockout experiments to determine whether the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex. Incidentally, the result was that it was IC.

    So how is this "something ID just never gets around to doing"?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Lars: Scott Minnich performed gene knockout experiments to determine whether the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex.

    In terms of demonstrating the point, that's a silly experiment. You may as well remove the heart and see what happens. It's been fairly obvious for a very long time that organisms and many organs and organic structures need all their parts.

    Lars: One prediction is that there will be irreducibly complex systems in biology.

    Evolution can result in irreducible complex systems. An well-researched example is the mammalian middle ear for which we have a range of fossils and genetic evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Zachriel,
    It's been fairly obvious for a very long time that organisms and many organs and organic structures need all their parts.

    This is a startling admission. Do you mean they need all their parts in order to function at all? Then you agree, contra many prominent Darwinisms, that IC exists?

    Evolution can result in irreducible complex systems.

    I would say this is false by definition (of IC). In any case it is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence.

    An well-researched example is the mammalian middle ear for which we have a range of fossils and genetic evidence.

    Could you provide pointers to what you feel is the best evidence? What I see is fossil evidence of intermediate (interpreted as transitional) forms, and genetic evidence that has not been claimed to confirm the phylogenetic tree suggested by fossils. The pattern with other parts of the TOL is that patterns of descent suggested most parsimoniously by morphology conflict with patterns suggested by molecular evidence, resulting in conclusions of convergent evolution.

    Moreover, this is an example of a common evolutionist fallacy: claiming (supposed) evidence of common descent as evidence for evolution; and in the same vein, claiming that because something happened, it must have happened via undirected processes.

    However the above objections are irrelevant to the point I was making: that your assertion was incorrect, when you said that ID never gets around to making predictions and testing hypotheses. Your acknowledgment (or rebuttal) is notably absent... this is known as moving the goalposts (when the football gets too close). You may dispute the validity of the predictions, but they are still predictions made by ID proponents on the basis of ID and tested experimentally.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oops, prominent Darwinisms should be prominent Darwinists. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Back to the original topic, anyone who calls Waltke's resignation an example of "bullying" should read his statement on what happened:

    Statements by Bruce Waltke and RTS On Biologos Video and Waltke’s Resignation

    ReplyDelete
  23. Lars: Do you mean they need all their parts in order to function at all? Then you agree, contra many prominent Darwinisms, that IC exists?

    The problem is equivocation on the term Irreducible Complexity, but if it means a complex system that is sensitive to perturbation (such as by the removal of parts), then Irreducibly Complex structures clearly exist in biology, and this was known since time immemorial.

    Lars: I would say this is false by definition (of IC).

    We can see why we referred to equivocation on the term.

    Behe: By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

    So, no. It can't be false "by {this} definition". There's a number of problems with Behe's contention that Irreducible Complexity can't evolve. One is that the individual parts themselves can evolve. An example of this is the mammalian middle ear which evolved from reptilian jaw bones. It's the same parts, but they slowly moved and adjusted their relationships. We have the intermediate fossils, and we can show that each small change resulted in an incremental improvement in hearing. Another possible way that Irreducible Complexity is through cooption. We have a functional complex A. It acquires a minimally helpful structure B. Through functional polarization, the system optimizes so that A is not dependent on B. Now we have an irreducible complex AB. This is a common form of evolution with molecular cascades.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Lars: Could you provide pointers to what you feel is the best evidence?

    Two bones in reptilian embryos lead to jaw bones instead lead to the middle ear bone. This predicts the evolutionary transition. When this was discovered, it didn't seem possible that such a transition was possible, but over the last fifty years or so, a number of transitionals have been discovered, including organisms with the lower jaw bones moved to the hinge, an ear drum on the lower jaw with bones free to vibrate, both jaw joints in a single organism, then movement of the bones to the cranium.

    The latest discovery provides evidence of how developmental heterochrony and gene patterning led to the observed evolutionary changes. This is also supported by experiments with genetic mutation in mice that can change the developmental pattern of Meckel’s cartilage.

    Quang Ji et al., Evolutionary Development of the Middle Ear in Mesozoic Therian Mammals, Science 2009.

    So what we have is embryonic evidence predicting fossil evidence predicting molecular evidence. Different methodologies by different observers testing and confirming predictions from the Theory of Evolution.

    Lars: The pattern with other parts of the TOL is that patterns of descent suggested most parsimoniously by morphology conflict with patterns suggested by molecular evidence, resulting in conclusions of convergent evolution.

    If you are referring to problems resolving certain divergences, that's not unexpected when dealing with rapidly diverging lineages from the distant past. As our technology has improved, many of these question have been resolved.

    Lars: Moreover, this is an example of a common evolutionist fallacy: claiming (supposed) evidence of common descent as evidence for evolution; and in the same vein, claiming that because something happened, it must have happened via undirected processes.

    No. The evidence support the role of natural selection in complex adaptation. Again, the mammalian middle ear can be shown to have been incremental, with each step a selectable improvement in function over its ancestral forms.

    Lars: your assertion was incorrect, when you said that ID never gets around to making predictions and testing hypotheses. Your acknowledgment (or rebuttal) is notably absent...

    We did respond. A valid experiment would be able to distinguish between the various hypotheses. Evolution is more than capable of producing Irreducibly Complex systems through mechanisms we can directly observe in nature. The experiment you suggested is not *entailed* in the hypothesis of Intelligent Design, nor is it distinguishing from competing hypotheses. It is no more telling than removing the heart of a lab rat.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Correction: Through functional polarization, the system optimizes so that A is {now} dependent on B.

    ReplyDelete