>Is S. J. Gould a Darwinist? That depends on ones definition of
>Darwinism. If Darwinism is defined as a change of flora and fauna
>over time (somehow) by some (unknown) materialistic naturalistic
>causes, then yes, Gould is a Darwinist. If on the other hand a
>Darwinist is one who understands these changes to be more or less
>as Darwin did by the gradual accumulation of species variation by
>natural selection, then no, Gould is not a Darwinist.
>
[Gould review deleted. Thanks for posting it, John]
It seems there is a debate going on within the evolution theory community
over the definition of Darwinism, or at least over whether the group Niles
Eldredge calls "naturalists" are legitimate Darwinians. For those of us
who are outside the community to second-guess which definitions are
legitimate seems to me akin to a group of lawyers trying to resolve the
question of whether light is a particle or a wave. They can certainly try,
but what, if any, are the technical merits of their arguments? What, if
any, credibility will they have within the physics community? Or, to be
fair, it's akin to a group of electrical engineers trying to rule on how a
difficult legal gray area ought to be resolved. Their arguments might have
merit, but would you expect the lawyers to listen?
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)