On Thu, 20 Jul 1995 23:26:28 -0400 you wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>SJ>Of course! But then I don't claim my views are in any way, shape or
>form, "Darwinism".<<
>
GM>I wouldn't call what I advocate as Darwinism.
Then what is it?
GM>And if push came to shove, I
>doubt that Gould and Eldridge would label their views as "Darwinism".
> Darwinism was what Darwin and the biologists in the later part of the
>nineteenth century believed. NeoDarwinism is the word most evolutionists
>would use today (I believe. I will bow before the correction of some
>biologist). And punc-eq is different from NeoDarwinism. Thus, if you are
>fighting Darwinism, you are fighting views that are out of date by 100 years.
No. Gould describes himself as a Darwinian:
"As a Darwinian, I wish to defend Goldschmidt's postulate that
macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated..."
(Gould S.J., "The Return of the Hopeful Monster", "The Panda's Thumb",
1980, Penguin, London, p157).
I use "Darwinism" in the broad sense as Phil Johnson:
"By "Darwinism I mean fully naturalistic evolution, involving chance
mechanisms guided by natural selection." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", Second Edition, 1993, Inter Varsity Press, Illinois, p4)
GM>This is similar to the oft condemned Uniformitarianism in geology.
> Geologists, (contrary to many apologetical books) do not believe in
>uniformitarianism anymore. Uniformitarianism as advocated by Lyell believed
>not only that the only acceptable processes which could occur were processes
>observed today, they also believed that the RATES of those processes must be
>the same throughout all time. In other words, Lyell advocated a perpetual
>motion machine. Today, geologists believe in what is called 'actualism'. It
>means merely that the laws of physics and chemistry were the same in the
>geologic past as they are today. This is why it is no big deal for geology
>to incorporate the catastrophic meteor impact at the end of the Cretaceous.
> The laws of physics were the same at the end of the Cretaceous so gravity
>and orbital mechanics caused the collision.
That's OK. I have no argument with the above.
GM>My point in all this is that you seem to want evolutionary theory
>to remain static and unchanging from what either Darwin believed, or
>what Dawkins believes.
No. I am simply wanting to clarify what modern evolutionists believe.
They claim that Darwin basically got it right:
"This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once
presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no
longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we
shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, Penguin, pp.xiii)
GM>This will never be the case. While I will
>agree that probably the majority of biologists are neodarwinians,
>that does not mean that the neodarwinians are correct.
I would appreciate you clarifying where you think Neo-Darwinism
is incorrect.
GM>IMO (and the opinion of others to whom I am grateful for some of
>this) the next great school of thought in evolutionary theory will
>combine nonlinear dynamics with punc-eq. and developmental biology.
>Those three views are made for each other and can explain a whole lot
>of unexplained phenomena such as the Cambrian Explosion, transitions
>between taxa and the nature of the fossil record.
So you do acknowledge that current evolutionary theory is inadequate
to explain the above?
GM>Of course, we
>Christians, will still be fighting (and quoting) the views held by
>Darwin (as if Darwin wrote some sort of biological sacred text that
>all biologists must sign an oath to support).
No. If evolutionists completely disowned Darwin, then "Christians"
would stop attacking aspects of his thought that are still held by
evolutionists today.
GM>Darwin was wrong on numerous points (e.g. his view of heredity).
>Extremely few biologists believe in Darwins view of heredity today (I
>won't say none, cause I feel certain someone does)
Everyone accepts that Glenn. What else was Darwin wrong on (apart
from "use and disuse of parts" and "pangenes") that "Christians"
should not continue attacking today? Was he wrong on his central
tenet:
"Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most
important, but not the exclusive, means of modification." (Darwin C.,
"The Origin of Species", Everyman's Library, 1967, J.M. Dent & Sons
Ltd, London, p20)
GM>So, your criticisms of who accepts what view are not really
>relevant. What is important is the question "Does a given view
>explain the data" The coming synthesis of these three items listed
>above is the science of the early next century which Christians are
>going to have to deal with and it explains a lot.
So you agree that current Darwinism (including Neo-Darwinism and
Punctuated Equilibria) does not "explain the data"? It would be
helpful then if you stated that unequivocally, and where particularly
you think it is inadequate.
God bless.
Stephen