On Mon, 18 Dec 1995 09:42:26 -0500 you wrote:
SJ>Gould's review came very close to repudiating Darwinism
>in favor of a concept of 'evolution' that resembles the pre-Darwinian
>catastrophism of George Cuvier. I wrote to Gould after this review to
>suggest that he is no more of a Darwinist than I am, and that he
>refuses to acknowledge this only because he fears the metaphysical
>consequences. He did not answer." (pp 227-228)
BH>I am currently reading a book that has previously been mentioned on
>the reflector: "Reinventing Darwin: The great debate at the high
>table of evolution theory" by Niles Eldredge. Eldredge delineates
>the areas of disagreement between "adaptationists" (essentially this
>is the group which considers natural selection to be the only driving
>force of any consequence in evolution and believes population
>genetics can pretty much explain all of evolution) and "naturalists"
>-- mostly paleontologists, including Eldredge and Gould, who contend
>that the fossil record does not support the models of evolution which
>result from a pure application of population genetics. There are
>some sharp disagreements, to be sure, but Eldredge, and Gould so far
>as I know, consider themselves Darwinists. It seems to me that Phil
>may be trying to hold all evolutionists to a "Darwinian orthodoxy"
>which is acknowledged by the population genetics community byt not by
>the naturalists.
Thanks for this. But I think PJ is right. "Darwinian orthodoxy" via
a blind watchmaker model is not an optional extra. It is *absolutely
essential* to explain naturalistically the build up of the enormous
information content in all living things:
"The advantage of empirical evolution is that it squares pretty well
with observations. The disadvantage is that it does not explain the
main point that a theory of evolution needs to explain which is the
origin of adaptive complexity. Living organisms are packed with
complex parts that have to work together, and the genetic information
required to keep those parts working properly to serve the needs of
the organism must be enormous. Where did it come from? To stick with
Dawkins's chosen example, how did the bat get its wings, or its
echolocation (bat sonar) system, or its breathing apparatus, or any of
the myriad other complex things that bats need to have? Extinctions
might clear the way for surviving organisms to occupy new
environmental niches, but extinction events only kill, they do not
create...If adaptive complexity is to be explained at all, it must be
by a model like that provided by Dawkins. Gould can discard that
model only at the cost of leaving adaptive complexity unexplained.
Probably that is why Gould is evasive about whether he is rejecting
the Dawkins model or merely supplementing it with other kinds of
evolution." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove ILL, 1995, p87)
If Dawkins is right that: 1. the blind watchmaker slow, gradual
cumulative natural selection model is the only possible naturalistic
explanation of adaptive complexity; yet 2. Gould is right that the
fossil record shows that it didn't happen that way; then it follows
that: 3. there is no viable naturalistic explanation for adaptive
complexity.
Of course, if Progressive Creation is true, we should expect this
giant dilemma in Naturalistic Evolution theory vs fact to remain
unresolved, as it has since the late 1970's, when Gould wrote:
"I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's. Since
then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description
of evolution. The molecular assault came first, followed quickly by
renewed attention to unorthodox theories of speciation and by
challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been
reluctant to admit it-since beguiling is often forever-but if Mayr's
characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that
theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its
persistence as textbook orthodoxy." (Gould S.J., "Is a new and
general theory of evolution emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1),
January 1980, p120).
Dawkins writes:
"Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the
Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by
one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more
special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that
the world was created from the excrement of ants." (Dawkins R., "The
Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p316):
Here is a story from that "tribe of Middle Eastern herders":
"Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower
that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves
and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth." But the LORD
came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building.
The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have
begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for
them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will
not understand each other." So the LORD scattered them from there
over all the earth, and they stopped building the city." (Gn 11:4-8)
He who has ears to hear, let him hear! :-) Truly "the foolishness of
God is wiser than man's wisdom" (1Cor 1:25)
Happy New Year!
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------