Below are a number of response to the exchange between Michael Ruse and Billy Grassie on the thread about Human Creativity. The first response is from Steve Petermann, who addresses the question of Christian Theology and Darwinism. The second response is from Enezio E. de Almeida Filho in Brazil, who address the significance of Darwinism in Biology. The third response is from Rudolf Brun in Texas, who addresses the role of natural selection in genomic evolution. The fourth response is from Phil Skell, who challenges the relevance of Darwinism to most contemporary scientific research. The fifth response is from Phil Johnson, who looks forward to the end of Darwinism. The sixth response is from Nat Lehrman in New York, who wants to direct religion away from unknowable question and focus on ethical behaviors. The seventh and final response is from Jerry Brink from Massachusetts, who cautions against the tendency of alpha males to diminish an opponent's integrity in these academic arguments. There is much to consider in these seven postings.

-- Billy Grassie

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Steve Petermann" Subject: Re:[METAVIEWS] 056: Human Creativity Considered Critically, by Michael Ruse

These comments concerning Michael Ruse's critique:

I agree with Michael that the theory of Darwinian evolution is not necessarily in conflict with Christianity. However, quite typically along with the theory comes the baggage of materialism. That extra baggage, if employed, *is* in conflict. One of the main tenets of Christian theology is that God *acts*. The Christian God is neither a deistic God who sets things in motion and then idly watches things transpire, nor even a neo-deistic God who keeps natural law working but doesn't interject any intelligence into the mix. The Christian God is an intelligent participant in creation, a *living* God as the Hebrews assert. But if God is an active participant in creation then how does that relate to evolution? Studies of evolution over the years have presented compelling evidence for the theory. Only by ignoring the data could one deny, at least to a point, the validity of Darwinian evolution.

So the rub for those who embrace both Darwinism and Christianity is to find some sort of resolution to the "apparent" conflicts. Fortunately that project is being actively undertaken by some prominent scholars. One example of an attempt to deal with these issues is _Evolutionary and Molecular Biology : Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action_ edited by Robert John Russel.

I have seen other attempts in the past to reconcile Christianity with Darwinian evolution but they typically skirt around the deep issues of God's acting. I would hope that other attempts along these lines would take seriously the difficulty of addressing the full scope of issues.

I look forward to reading Michael's forthcoming book on this.

Best Regards, Steve Petermann

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Enezio E. de Almeida Filho" Subject: Re: [METAVIEWS] 057: Human Creativity Revisited, by William Grassie

Dear Dr. Grassie:

It is very hard for me to understand your "Human Creativity" essays from your Post-Darwinian Weltanschauung. The only conclusion I have derived from them sounds like a "muazzin" calling out believers to recite the ""Darwinist Credo": "Only Darwin's theory is Theoria Perennis in Biology, and Mayr, Dawkins and Dennett his true prophets".

The main reason an unfounded saying ["There is no alternative theory in Biology to replace Darwinism"] is gaining the status of truth beyond doubt is due more to "the philosophical naturalism gatekeepers blindness" to what the biological and paleontological evidences are saying rather than the lack of a theory to replace it.

Either chance and [mild] natural selection has brought forth all complex living organisms as per Darwin's prescription or ... There is no other way around.

Enezio E. de Almeida Filho Science Education/History of Science Researcher Brazil

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Rudolf B. Brun" Subject: Re: [METAVIEWS] 057: Human Creativity Revisited, by William Grassie

Billy:

Darwinism must be expanded because of new insights from the field: "Evolution and Development." There is now good evidence that evolution not only works on organisms (phenotypes) by natural selection, but also directly on the their genes (genotypes).

Genomic evolution seems to work in a three-step process: duplication of existing genes, variation of the duplicated genes by mutations, and integration of the mutated genes into the original genome. In this way, genomes increase the quantity of available genes. As an analogy, one can perhaps think of this process as increasing the number of different keys, to generate bigger key board.

There is a second mechanism that works on genomes: it is how genes interact with one another. This interaction of genes generates genetic programs. These control, for example, the development of embryos. In this case, the genetic programs guide the differentiation process by timing what happens when and where in the developing organism.

To stay with the analogy of the key board, genetic programs provide the music played on the extended key board. The program might be relatively simple (e.g. "twinkle, twinkle little star..") or highly complex (a fugue by J.S. Bach).

From Amphioxus to humans??
Be well!

Rudolf Brun

For more inf.:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Phil Skell Subject: Re: [METAVIEWS] 057: Human Creativity Revisited, by William Grassie

Evolution Theory is a broadly overarching historical theory that pertains to the developmental history of living organisms over the past 3.5 billion years. Darwinian enthusiasts, popularizers and researchers alike, have insisted over the past 140 years that his Concepts are the foundation of all biology, some maintaining it undergirds all modern scholarship. Is this a reasoned, sound, or even useful perspective? Does it risk creating obstacles to science funding?

It is reasonable to examine its credentials for its current utility. Does it have an intimate impact in the inductive, or experimental, sciences, such as Physics, Chemistry, and Biology? Despite statements in the literature that make it out to be vitally important in modern Microbiology, Neurobiology, Genetics, Plant Biology, Medicine, Surgery, Pharmaceutics, etc., I believe this is a highly doubtful claim. Nobel Laureate, Francis Crick wrote: "It might be thought that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case."

I am mindful of the statement of a professor at a prestigious medical school, that Darwin is not mentioned in the four-year medical program. And, another from a researcher in the pharmaceutical industry, that his company does not have a Division of Darwinian Concepts to help in making more effective their choices for future research.

A half century ago, during WW II, I was personally associated with an antibiotics research group, engaged in the full range of activities, from finding organisms which inhibited bacterial growth to the isolation and proof of structure of the antibiotics they produced. Since then there has been astounding sophisticated advances in instrumentations and methodologies, but nonetheless persons engaged in current activities make no more use of Darwinian Concepts than in those earlier days; those Concepts do not, and did not, have a determinative impact on the prosecution of the projects.

Genomics is currently in the news headlines with the remarkable achievements in detailing the human genome. This technological breakthrough would have occurred regardless of one's beliefs on Darwinism. The question that must be addressed: Is the Theory mainly of overarching historical importance with modest relevance to modern research? Granted, those engaged in exhuming ancient artifacts, fossils, can claim the Concepts are "Absolutely vital" in their field of natural history. Paleontology may, with some justification claim that Evolutionary Theory provides a useful framework.

To clarify the discrepancy in perceptions, I suggest that persons working in biological fields, and all other science-oriented Darwinists, enlighten us by responding to: {In your research, is design of new programs dependent upon Darwinian Concepts, in the sense that if you did not agree with its major tenets, your program would be significantly different?}. I have posed this question to 40 persons in scholarly activities, two-thirds in scientific areas, the remainder broadly across other fields, and thus far I have not had a yes response, with justification of a claim of relevance in the modern context for the heuristic importance of Darwinian Concepts. I expect there may be some positive responses. If I have not searched widely enough for relevance, there should be ample opportunity for correction of my assessment: That those overarching historical Concepts play a negligible role in most modern research programs.

Can the case be made that, without the Concepts evolution claims to be, there would be no research programs, no further progress? To be convincing advocates must give their assessment with reference to specific research programs. The global question, "Is Darwinism important?" invites the arm-waving reply: "Absolutely, vital!!". Vital to one's world view perhaps, but vital to particular research programs?

No doubt most scientists feel more comfortable with the Darwinist historical scenario than with the Creationist alternatives. Polls indicate the reverse for the general population. But, Science is threatened both by the religious fundamentalists as being antireligious, and by the Darwinian Enthusiasts who see science as a vehicle for their secular views. Science may be best served by maintaining a wall-of-separation between its inductive/experimental activities and disputes regarding world-views, a separation from the extremists of both varieties. It is one thing for atheists to use science to support or lend respectability (as Richard Dawkins has put it) to their views. It is another for atheists to advance their views under the banner "Thus Speaks Science", when it is only atheists, who perhaps happen to be scientists, propagandizing for their beliefs.

Illustrative of the current relevance of this matter is the response of the "Science Community" to the recent events in Kansas. Their Board indicated they would not include in their state-wide final exams questions on three subjects: 1. Origin of Life from a primordial soup, 2. Micro-evolution entails Macro-evolution, and 3. Big Bang origin of the Universe. They made no restriction on teaching these matters, nor any requirement or recommendation, as often claimed, that Creationism be taught; the old standards, dating from 1995, had much less about evolution in them than the new standards. Each of these subjects omitted from the state-wide exams is part of ancient natural history, arguably of questionable relevance to the graduating high school senior. One must wonder at the distorted perspectives that provoked the "Science Community" to such disproportionate responses, including remarks in some reputable publications, recommending that Kansas graduates be denied admissions to colleges and universities. Why all this fuss in the science community?

With regard to the polls and the prevailing public attitude, the proponents of evolution are teachers, let them teach and persuade the public, not by appeals to authority but with scientific evidence. Their failure to do so in the generations since the Scopes trial is exactly that, their failure. Before they blame the public for its obtuseness, let them remember that, as it is a poor workman who blames his tools, it is a poor teacher who blames his students.

Meanwhile, let us recognize that the debate between the extremes on both sides has only marginal relevance to modern scientific activities, and if the debate is continued in the current intemperate manner, they may be putting at risk the future funding of vital activities. The Congress, a microcosm of the "general public", holds the purse strings! We are all vastly indebted to the science community for the excellence of their scholarly activities, but this does not give members of our community the right to breach the Wall-of-Separation and to use, as a pulpit, our public schools for indoctrination with their religious or antireligious views. The political route may be the only means by which the attention of the Enthusiasts can be gained, to encourage them to desist from conflating their metaphysical world-views with the science they do so capably. If that route is taken we will all suffer.

Philip S. Skell Emeritus, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, 16801 member, National Academy of Science.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Phillip E. Johnson" Subject: Re: [METAVIEWS] 057: Human Creativity Revisited, by William Grassie

At 11:48 PM 7/26/2000 -0400, William Grassie wrote:

>I am happy to call myself a Post-Freudian or a Post-Marxist, because




>I take what is useful from these great thinkers and leave the rest.
>I recognize their important roles in the history of our civilization
>and also their roles as fathers of the disciplines of psychology and
>sociology. There are some orthodox Freudians and Marxists still
>around, but their voices are very small in contemporary intellectual
>discourse. I predict that within ten years, strident Darwinism will
>be as embarrassing to biology as would be a strident Freudian or
>Marxist today in most academic departments. Michael, it is time to
>move on and separate the fact of evolution from the theory of
>Darwinism.

Hi Billy --

I guess Ruse and the other Darwinists just aren't ready yet to accept the fate of Freud and Marx, and go quietly into that dustbin of history they had prepared for Jesus. Nice essay! But I think that those who move on and separate the fact of evolution from the theory of Darwinism will discover that the "fact" becomes ever more lacking in specific content.

Best wishes,

Phil Johnson

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Subject: Re: [METAVIEWS] 057: Human Creativity Revisited, by William Grassie From: "Dr. N.S.Lehrman"

Billy -

What you call homo sapiens' "Lamarckian wild card" is really history, which unlike evolution, which has been determined by chance, has been largely determined by the intentions of people. That's because humans are the only species with language, history and religion.

I think these discussions have tended to neglect the history of religion, and of Christian monotheism in particular. That sprang from Jewish monotheism, which came in turn from near-eastern pagan polytheism. That polytheism saw gods as very like humans (e.g. on Mt. Olympus), who therefore had to be placated with sacrifices and ceremonials. Although Temple Judaism continued the sacrificial cult, its new and unique concept of the One God changed over the years, with the greatest change having resulted from the prophets. Notions of justice and law as the heart of religion appeared alongside the sacrificial cult, and actually replaced it after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. Christianity and rabbinic Judaism, both of which arose then, have much more in common than either has with sacrificial Judaism.

Emphasis on law, and obedience to it, rather than on faith, is one of the most important differences between rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity, and between the two faiths today. The concept of the mitzvah - obedience to God's commandments - has always been at the heart of Judaism, with obedient deeds (which included ritual activities) far more important than mere passive belief. Indeed, Judaism has always seen worship as an important tool in strengthening people to obey the laws and universal obedience to those laws as the road to the messianic age.

Profound differences exist in defining what Moral Law is, especially in the sexual area, among and within contemporary Judaism, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. I believe that focusing more on these issues, and on the role of worship, might be more fruitful, and better help religion become the important constructive force it can and should be, than endless discussions of the existence and nature of God. Why discuss unknowable questions when other important, accessible ones are pleading for attention and understanding?

Nat Lehrman

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: JERRY BRINK Subject: Response

Dear Bill,

I have read with enthusiasm and satisfaction your magnificently articulated piece on hypercomplexity as a critical paradigm for understanding biological evolution at all levels from the molecular to the organismic. Its promise for future insights into this pattern arises from the unpredictable manifestations of expressed features that one can readily see in fractal or chaos theory and may be emerging in human nature in the form of creativity, intuition and spirituality. The concept of emergence has been elegantly addressed by George Ellis in the Meta series and seems perhaps to be a natural element of the hypercomplexity paradigm.

As a retired neuroscientist, I can ponder these issues from a non-competitive perspective and revel in the aesthetic of the various perspectives that you, Michael Ruse and others bring to the table. However, it saddens me to see competing ideas presented in hurtful language that diminishes the integrity of the opponents even though this is the standard tactic for defense used in the arena of academic excellence and tenure. It appears to me that this type of dialectic is a manifestation of the insidious decline in modern society of the essential glue of a civilized culture viz. common courtesy taken to another level of cruelty by couching it in sophisticated terminology. I feel that mutual critique of a complex idea at a level of intellectual insight and articulation gives far more credibility to the different philosophical postulates of the idea than does derision of the motives or integrity of the discussants. I must admit that derision of an opponent does convey a sense of satisfaction that one sees more overtly in the behavior of alpha males to subordinates in other primate species and suggests that it may be innate in us also.

I look forward to seeing more of the development of your ideas in this area since I personally think this is where the future for studies in human spirituality will dominate.

Best wishes,

John Brink, Prof. Emeritus of Biology Clark University Worcester, MA 01610 Email: jbrink@clarku.edu

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This publication is hosted by Metanexus Online http://www.metanexus.net. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors.

Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to . Metanexus consists of a number of topically focused forums (Anthropos, Bios, Cogito, Cosmos, Salus, Sophia, and Techne) and periodic HTML enriched composite digests from each of the lists.

Copyright notice: Except when otherwise noted, articles may be forwarded, quoted, or republished in full with attribution to the author of the column and "Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science ". Republication for commercial purposes in print or electronic format requires the permission of the author. Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by Metanexus Institute.

Published   2000.07.28