Peter Williams has commented on Richard Dawkins’s saying this (scroll to “How to Win an Argument…):
Natural selection is very much not a theory of chance. Natural selection is really the opposite of chance, it’s non-random survival.
To what Peter wrote I would add these questions. (I have raised these questions here more than once, and I will give others another opportunity to show me what I am misunderstanding.) Did natural selection ever create anything? Did it ever devise one solution to one problem of life, or to adaptation to any changing environment? Did it ever invent or otherwise come up with a single mechanism for increasing an organism’s reproductive success?
No.
Every innovation in natural history (according to evolutionary theory) came about by chance. Every new structure or function resulted from a mutation thrown up for no purpose, with no intention, with no connection whatever to any fitness of the organism or any concern whatsoever for the environment or the population or the competition. Every new thing in natural history was purely random.
Natural selection, according to evolutionists, conserved some of those innovations. It is entirely a conservative force in biology; it innovates nothing. Dawkins says nothing in this article about random variation; he presents his case as if evolution were only about a non-random process of selection. Really, though natural selection is quite uninteresting from the standpoint of biological change. All innovation has been driven by chance. All natural selection has ever contributed has been to conserve what a blind, mindless process has from time to time thrown into some organisms by chance.
So what, then, if Dawkins is right that natural selection is not a theory of chance? Evolution never went anywhere that randomness did not send it. Evolution is very much a theory dependent on chance.
_______________
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
You’re so pessimistic, Tom. I wish you’d post something positive about science once in a while.
But is Dawkins really denying that “Evolution is very much a theory dependent on chance”?
Natural selection isn’t about chance in the way, perhaps, that compiling an anthology of poems isn’t about writing poetry. It is fair to give some credit to the anthologist as anthologist, and to oppose the anthology to the random collection of poems. We can distinguish the anthologizing from the poetry writing. Similarly, for the sake of explaining evolution, it seems fair to distinguish natural selection from chance, and to oppose the product of the one from the product of the other.
Sorry, it’s past my bedtime and I see that the analogies I tried got mixed up. Here’s another attempt:
Natural selection isn’t about chance in the way, perhaps, that compiling an anthology of poems isn’t about writing poetry, or in the way the anthology isn’t merely a random collection of poems. It is fair to give some credit to the anthologist as anthologist, though she writes no poem. It is fair to oppose the anthology to the random collection of poems. Similarly, for the sake of explaining evolution, it seems fair to distinguish natural selection from chance, and to oppose the one to the other.
@Jordan:
Sorry about the pessimism. When I do post something positive about science, though, the atheists nail me for that, too. For example, the fine-tuning of the universe, the worldview assumptions at the original basis of science…
Also, Jordan, is it “pessimistic” to point out when science is being misinterpreted or misused, or takes philosophically unsupportable positions?
Well, it’s pessimistic to point that out every time you talk about science. It would be nice to see a non-divisive, optimistic post about science.
Also, I don’t think science, per se, takes any philosophical positions, period. It merely describes physical reality.
Every time? But I’ve already alluded to exceptions, Jordan.
As to whether science per se takes any philosophical positions, first I would have to say that yours is a terribly uninformed statement. Science takes the metaphysical position that the external world is real; or if not real (which is also a metaphysical position), at least worth studying (which is an ethical and/or aesthetic position, also part of philosophy). It takes the metaphysical position that there are regularities to study. Its position with respect to mathematics is philosophically based; and the scientific method itself is an epistemological (philosophy of knowledge) position.
Second, scientists often extend their philosophizing well beyond that to unsupportable positions. A prime example was when Nature said that study of the brain had ruled out the possibility that we were specially created by God.
Finally: have you ever taken a non-divisive, positive stance with respect to theology or Christianity? (A little tu quoque for you.)
Jordan,
Consider these posts a critique of the philosophical positions of scientists rather than a critique of the method of science, which is science, per se.
Most (all?) of those exceptions explicitly support theism. Aren’t there any interesting, non-pessimistic things to say about science that don’t directly relate to Christianity? Judging by your posts on this blog, it appears that you feel science is either overtly pro-Christianity or pernicious. I say that’s a false dichotomy.
Tom, you’re splitting hairs now. Obviously, I was responding to your implication that science sometimes takes philosophically unsupportable positions, which implied philosophical positions in a broader sense. Of course science starts within a sane philosophical framework, but it doesn’t tell us (directly) what’s right/wrong, what’s beautiful/ugly, where we get meaning/purpose, etc. That’s what I meant.
Fine, but that’s not science. Its philosophy. And everyone likes to philosophize (even scientists).
Again, not science. And if Nature was peddling it as science, they ought to be ashamed.
99% of my friends and family are devout Christians (actually, truth be told, apart from myself, I only know 1 atheist), and we often discuss religion in non-divisive terms. My brother-in-law is a pastor, and we have an ongoing dialogue about religion, atheism, & philosophy in general. So, yes, I have taken a positive stance with respect to Christianity. Do I always do this? Unfortunately, no (I’m especially negligent on the internet, where anonymity brings out the worst me). But it would be nice if I did. It would be nice if we all did (not all the time, mind you… there needs to be some debate;-)).
@Jordan:
This is a blog about how Christianity and other topics relate, so when I write about anything, it’s bound to relate to Christianity.
For the record, as I’m under very competent (scientific) medical treatment for pneumonia, typing this on a very high-tech computer, sitting in a very comfortable climate-controlled living room, having read hundreds of articles on science topics every year throughout my adult life just because I find them fascinating—yes, I do have very favorable feelings toward science in general. I just don’t write about all of it. I write about what intersects with Christian thinking; and of course not even all of that, but also what interests me, seems important to me, and on which I feel competent to write.
I think you’ll find that when I write about science, most of the time I write about the way scientists philosophize about science. Not always, but most of the time. I also write about how science gets distorted in the popular media, and I write about issues relating to ID and evolution. Richard Dawkins misrepresented evolution in the article I blogged about this time, and I think that’s important and on topic for this blog. I do think, though, that most of my science topics have to do with what’s going on in the philosophical interpretations surrounding them.
I agree.