"Exposing Discovery Institute": video series by "Professor" Dave Farina

Before even remotely considering the Third Way thinking I would need there to be plausible rebuttals to all the major arguments for ID, including the actual fossil record especially the Cambrian Explosion, the ubiquitous presence in all living organisms of irreducible complexity, and the wait time problem. Do you know of some?

StephenW is the only person here who is interested in the Third Way of evolution, so I am really glad he has joined this discussion.

It seems to me that we have reached a 3-way impass:

The Neo Darwinists simply assert that evolution has to occur by changes to the genome that get there by chance but are then subjected to selection.

The ID crowd (of which I consider myself an informal member) claim that it is easy to calculate how impossibly inefficient RM+NS would be, therefore a genetic designer is needed.

The Third Way, that claims to be totally materialistic while asserting that evolution can take place in other ways, and that you can see it happening in all sorts of studies.

Here is a review of a book that is supposed to explain the Third Way:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Four-...B08BT5YBHH

I am still hesitating to buy this book because the extra mechanisms don't sound very exciting:

Epigenetic inheritance isn't permanent, and we are talking long term, I presume.

The other mechanisms mentioned - behavioural or symbolic - don't seem to be up to much if we are thinking about large-scale evolution (bearing in mind that small-scale evolution is possible by RM+NS).

So come on Stephen - tell me what I am missing?

My feeling is that the evidence for evolution discovered by the Third Way people, simply has to be evidence of continuous ID!

David

StephenW is the only person here who is interested in the Third Way of evolution, so I am really glad he has joined this discussion.

It seems to me that we have reached a 3-way impass:

The Neo Darwinists simply assert that evolution has to occur by changes to the genome that get there by chance but are then subjected to selection.

The ID crowd (of which I consider myself an informal member) claim that it is easy to calculate how impossibly inefficient RM+NS would be, therefore a genetic designer is needed.

The Third Way, that claims to be totally materialistic while asserting that evolution can take place in other ways, and that you can see it happening in all sorts of studies.

Here is a review of a book that is supposed to explain the Third Way:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Four-...B08BT5YBHH

I am still hesitating to buy this book because the extra mechanisms don't sound very exciting:

Epigenetic inheritance isn't permanent, and we are talking long term, I presume.

The other mechanisms mentioned - behavioural or symbolic - don't seem to be up to much if we are thinking about large-scale evolution (bearing in mind that small-scale evolution is possible by RM+NS).

So come on Stephen - tell me what I am missing?

My feeling is that the evidence for evolution discovered by the Third Way people, simply has to be evidence of continuous ID!

David

I'm interested in the Third Way.

But I'm ultimately agnostic between the different options, at least for now.

Continuous ID seems contradictory, if the evidence for ID is the sudden appearance of more complex animal forms and organs?

I'm interested in the Third Way.

But I'm ultimately agnostic between the different options, at least for now.

Continuous ID seems contradictory, if the evidence for ID is the sudden appearance of more complex animal forms and organs?

Amazon prints a summary of the key ideas of Eva Jablonka's book. For some reason Amazon prints a different summary for the Kindle version than it does for the paperback version. This confused me for quite some time. The summary of the paperback version seems rather more explicit.

This updated edition of the widely read Evolution in Four Dimensions has been revised to reflect the spate of new discoveries in biology since the book was first published in 2005, offering corrections, an updated bibliography, and a substantial new chapter. Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb's pioneering argument proposes that there is more to heredity than genes.

They describe 4 “dimensions” in heredity—4 inheritance systems that play a role in evolution which,  they argue, can all provide variations on which natural selection can act:

• genetic
• epigenetic (or non-DNA cellular transmission of traits)
• behavioral
• symbolic (transmission through language and other forms of symbolic communication)

My problem is that epigenetic changes (the addition of small chemical groups to DNA and/or the chromatin protein which wraps the DNA inside the nucleus) may exist for a few generations, but eventually the chemical modification is lost. That means that as far as I can see, epigenetics can't contribute to the evolution of the species.

I'm not quite sure that behavioural/symbolic refers to, but it is an obvious truism that we have "evolved" from our ancestors by inventing and using language, and later inventing and using computer networks etc. This isn't part of biological evolution because it isn't part of a baby at birth. If a group of children were allowed to develop without language or tech, they would probably invent their own language, but they would certainly lose the tech because it is obviously not stored in their DNA!

Since Eva Jablonka seems to rely on this sleight of hand, I'm not inclined to purchase this book, though it might perhaps introduce me to some of the quirky evolutionary phenomena that the TW have discovered - which I would interpret as evidence for ID!

As I have said before, I think the Third Way is in fact, an attempt to do research into genetic phenomena that should not exist according to NeoDarwinism, while remaining inside Academic institutions. I suppose that ultimately this will evolve into something closer to ID!

David

Amazon prints a summary of the key ideas of Eva Jablonka's book. For some reason Amazon prints a different summary for the Kindle version than it does for the paperback version. This confused me for quite some time. The summary of the paperback version seems rather more explicit.


My problem is that epigenetic changes (the addition of small chemical groups to DNA and/or the chromatin protein which wraps the DNA inside the nucleus) may exist for a few generations, but eventually the chemical modification is lost. That means that as far as I can see, epigenetics can't contribute to the evolution of the species.

I'm not quite sure that behavioural/symbolic refers to, but it is an obvious truism that we have "evolved" from our ancestors by inventing and using language, and later inventing and using computer networks etc. This isn't part of biological evolution because it isn't part of a baby at birth. If a group of children were allowed to develop without language or tech, they would probably invent their own language, but they would certainly lose the tech because it is obviously not stored in their DNA!

Since Eva Jablonka seems to rely on this sleight of hand, I'm not inclined to purchase this book, though it might perhaps introduce me to some of the quirky evolutionary phenomena that the TW have discovered - which I would interpret as evidence for ID!

As I have said before, I think the Third Way is in fact, an attempt to do research into genetic phenomena that should not exist according to NeoDarwinism, while remaining inside Academic institutions. I suppose that ultimately this will evolve into something closer to ID!

David

It could lead to ID, but ID isn't even the only non-materialist game in town.

There's a reason Sheldrake is not an ID advocate after all?

It could lead to ID, but ID isn't even the only non-materialist game in town.

There's a reason Sheldrake is not an ID advocate after all?

I would say that morphic fields are a form of ID. When those newt embryos had an eye lens removed, the thing grew back via a different mechanism. Surely that is a form of intelligence?

I mean a watch might be built in a fully automated way, but intelligence is required to repair a watch.

However, I think you are right in that the critical issue here is to move into the non-materialist realm.

David

I would say that morphic fields are a form of ID. When those newt embryos had an eye lens removed, the thing grew back via a different mechanism. Surely that is a form of intelligence?

However, I think you are right in that the critical issue here is to move into the non-materialist realm.

David

I just mean AFAIK both he and DI have acknowledged his view is anti-materialist but not exactly ID though as you note they share a common goal and perhaps are not too different. From Dembski:

A Design-Theorist’s Brief Guide to Rupert Sheldrake

William A. Dembski

My own view is that Sheldrake and intelligent design are much closer than would be obvious from his public statements about ID. Indeed, I think our differences are much more linguistic and idiomatic than anything else. Take his concern that intelligent design commits one to a mechanistic conception of life. This would be true if ID required that the structure of organisms be imposed from outside by an architect or artisan in which the parts have no intrinsic relation to the whole. But ID does not require that. ID only requires that there be clear marks of intelligence in living systems.

My own view is that Sheldrake and intelligent design are much closer than would be obvious from his public statements about ID. Indeed, I think our differences are much more linguistic and idiomatic than anything else. Take his concern that intelligent design commits one to a mechanistic conception of life. This would be true if ID required that the structure of organisms be imposed from outside by an architect or artisan in which the parts have no intrinsic relation to the whole. But ID does not require that. ID only requires that there be clear marks of intelligence in living systems.

Yes, I think Dembinski is expressing exactly what I am saying!

Life did not start in a mindless way, nor does life run without one or more minds keeping it going.

David

I'm interested in the Third Way.

But I'm ultimately agnostic between the different options, at least for now.

Continuous ID seems contradictory, if the evidence for ID is the sudden appearance of more complex animal forms and organs?

I'm not sure the ID crowd ever said or implied that ID is continuous? Micro-evolution does seem to be quite apparent ~ but per ID, that is just the organism itself making those changes in response to their environment.

The other mechanisms mentioned - behavioural or symbolic - don't seem to be up to much if we are thinking about large-scale evolution (bearing in mind that small-scale evolution is possible by RM+NS).

So come on Stephen - tell me what I am missing?

My feeling is that the evidence for evolution discovered by the Third Way people, simply has to be evidence of continuous ID!

David

My answer is mental evolution.  Maybe the development of instinct is something like continuous ID.  Information is in the science sphere of pragmatic reality. 

 Here William Dembski, citing a group of thinkers, hits the nail on the head.

 Accordingly, the metaphysical picture that I’m painting attempts to make good on the promise of John Wheeler, Paul Davies, and others that information is poised to replace matter “as the primary ‘stuff ’ of the world” and that in information we have “finally arrived at the ‘right’ metaphor that will unify” the sciences. --- Being as Communion.

My answer is mental evolution.  Maybe the development of instinct is something like continuous ID.  Information is in the science sphere of pragmatic reality. 

 Here William Dembski, citing a group of thinkers, hits the nail on the head.

If "information" is defined as an encapsulation of experience into a communicable form, then certainly.