Not only is the bluefin’s dense, distinctly beefy musculature supremely appropriate for traversing the ocean’s breadth, but the animal also has attributes that make its evolutionary appearance seem almost deus ex machina, or rather machina ex deo — a machine from God. How else could a fish develop a sextantlike “pineal window” in the top of its head that scientists say enables it to navigate over thousands of miles? How else could a fish develop a propulsion system whereby a whip-thin crescent tail vibrates at fantastic speeds, shooting the bluefin forward at speeds that can reach 40 miles an hour? And how else would a fish appear within a mostly coldblooded phylum that can use its metabolic heat to raise its body temperature far above that of the surrounding water, allowing it to traverse the frigid seas of the subarctic?How else indeed!
This is an amazing piece of writing for a reputable newspaper, with an often credible team of science journalists. Who let this go by?
We don't know everything about how today's life-forms got here, but no evidence suggests that any of the gaps or even possible missing pieces of our theory and understanding could lead to Intelligent Design. It is one thing for an author to use mythological phrases rhetorically, but in today's contentious society where religious inanity already has credence as part of culture-battles for power, it is inexcusable and irresponsible to let such rhetoric pass the editorial blue-pencil.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with your literary analysis on this. Please note the words "seem almost" in "the animal also has attributes that make its evolutionary appearance seem almost deus ex machina, or rather machina ex deo — a machine from God."
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing more than figurative language, and it's no defense of the so-called scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
(I'm better at literary analysis than I'm at science.:)
Perfectly possible, Jim, and I tried valiantly to read it that way. But even if you are right, why bow to intelligent designers even metaphorically when the evolutionary explanation is as profound and awe inspiring as any machina ex deo invocation could ever hope to be?
ReplyDeleteFigures of speech are fine when they are in neutral territory, but here there is huge sociopolitical contention, and a figure of speech--if that's what it was, which isn't clear--can be misleading in ways it shouldn't.
ReplyDeleteWhat does 'almost' mean in this context? ID is unfalsifiable or untestable since whatever is here is here by God's 'intelligence' (whatever one would mean by that, of which a human is probably presumptuous to assume an understanding). So how can something 'almost' be ID? By what criterion is a feature of nature almost suggesting God's design, rather than clearly one?
Rhetorical figures are fine in literature and where they can't really mislead, or instead help the reader understand. But we don't think this would help either the secular scientist or the religious reader understand.
Anne,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I didn't merely try to read it that way, but objective literary analysis strongly pointed me to the conclusion that Greenberg referred to a figure of speech that's used by Greenpeace. And Greenpeace is one of the main subject points of this article.
Second, "why bow to intelligent designers....?" A, as stated above, it's within the context of Greenpeace's approach to the issue, which is a main part of the article. B, right or wrong, many more people in the US believe in theistic evolution compared to philosophical materialism while I think it's asking a bit much to require editors and commentators to ax all references to a divine creator, especially figurative references. Saying that, perhaps Greenpeace logic implies that it has always been wrong for humans to eat bluefin tuna regardless if the breeding population was nine thousand or nine million, which doesn't come remotely close to persuading me. But the fact of a breeding population in some areas is down to nine thousand persuades me, if it's a likely estimate.
Ken,
First, all of the above applies.
Second, I respect you two as brilliant scholars, but per reasons stated above I don't see that figure of speech as misleading.
Third, figurative or literal references to a divine creator of various life forms doesn't necessarily suggest the so-called science of Intelligent Design. And that article doesn't come remotely close to suggesting the so-called science of Intelligent Design.
Fourth, the idea of "seem almost" means that the great abilities of the bluefin could appear that deity went out of its way to design it, a compliment. It's a statement of imagination that I suppose might escape some non-theists, which I wouldn't have guessed before I read this MT post.
Goetz,
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that a neutral analysis lets Greenberg off the hook, it just is not a neutral topic.
In a world where "fine tuning" goes from "fiddling with constants that our models don't account for" to "divine hand must be fiddling the constants," we have to be very careful with our language.
I'm not sure of your involvement in topics relevant to creationism/ID, but in my experience, this is exactly the sort of thing that gets misconstrued as a defense of ID. "Intelligent designer" is, unless qualified, generally avoided as a term by theistic evolutionists for this reason.
As we've been traveling, it has taken me a while to respond to comments.
ReplyDeleteZachary, I agree.
And Jim, I think you'd be hard put to find an evolutionary biologist, even a theistic one, who would accept that a deity has a hand at any stage in the evolution of form. Perhaps a bluefin tuna can be seen as a compliment to its designer, but to attribute that to an intelligent designer with a plan rather than to evolution is, to my mind, to demean the power of evolution.
It's one thing to believe that Nature is a grand design of a God, but in the form of its process rather than the details. If God has a hand in the details, this negates the elegant, consistent - and discernible - power of evolution. And is entirely unnecessary to the evolutionary biologist. Unfortunately, that does not necessarily put humans in a privileged position in any Designer's eyes.
As Darwin said, a single threat to his theory would kill it dead. The bluefin tuna is no threat.
Anne,
ReplyDeleteThough you were addressing Jim, I feel the need to note some things. Theistic evolutionists do occasionally toe the line of "[accepting] that a deity has a hand at any stage in the evolution of form." The "intelligence niche" argument (addressed by Coyne in the New Republic review of Miller/Gibberson) and other related arguments that attempt to show that humans are nevertheless in some sense specially created comes to mind. So, this might not be specifically a question of forms, but theistic evolutionists do, and very frequently, attempt to carve out a special place for man as intended consequence of evolution. The teleology remains, tying into another part of your comment:
"If God has a hand in the details, this negates the elegant, consistent - and discernible - power of evolution. And is entirely unnecessary to the evolutionary biologist. Unfortunately, that does not necessarily put humans in a privileged position in any Designer's eyes."
Guided evolution is all about a hand in the details. The question is the heaviness of the hand, and more perhaps more tellingly, the relation of that hand to humanity.
This is not to equivocate between TEs and IDers. Up to standards of honesty and integrity, there is no comparison. But, the key distinction between TEs and IDers are political, depending on the IDer in question.
That said, this difference would -- I think -- make itself clear on the matter of bluefin tunas. "The power of natural selection" as explanatory would be perfectly satisfactory to a TE, whereas an IDer might well shout "magic!"
Zachary,
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, the idea of guided evolution is rather like children coloring between the lines. No matter how well they might stay within the lines, or how creative they might get in their color choice -- to belabor this metaphor -- it's still not art.
Whereas evolution is art.