On Wed, 20 Dec 95 13:43:06 EST 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." (RITB pp 227-228)
BH>...Phil may be trying to hold all evolutionists to a "Darwinian
>orthodoxy" which is acknowledged by the population genetics community
>by not by the naturalists.
PT>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.
Agreed. This is why creationists take "comfort" in Gould's quotes.
Fundamentally Gould is a pre-Darwinian saltationist:
"Gould and Eldredge have consistently described punctuated equilibrium
as a Darwinist theory, not a saltationist repudiation of Darwinism.
On the other hand, it is easy to see how some people the impression
that saltationism was at least being hinted, if explicitly advocated.
Gould and Eldredge put two quotes by T.H. Huxley on the front of
their 1977 paper, both complaints about Darwin's refusal to allow a
little "saltus" in his theory. At about the same time, Gould
independently endorsed a qualified saltationism and predicted
Goldschmidt's vindication. The trouble with saltationism, however, is
that when closely examined it turns out to be only a meaningless
middle ground somewhere between evolution and special creation. As
Richard Dawkins put it, you can call the Biblical creation of man from
the dust of the earth a saltation. In terms of fossil evidence,
saltation just means that a new form appeared out of nowhere and we
haven't the faintest idea how. As a scientific theory, "saltationist
evolution" is just what Darwin called it in the first place: rubbish.
Gould and Eldredge understand that, and so despite hints of
saltationism particularly by Gould) they have always kept open their
lines of retreat to orthodox Darwinian gradualism." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
Ill., Second Edition, 1993, pp61-62).
I have read that Gould has mesothelioma (a fatal cancer of the
lungs caused by exposure to asbestos). If this is true (and I
hope it isn't), then perhaps Gould is finally throwing off the
Neo-Darwinian shackles he has need to give lip-service to, and
is going to repudiate Darwinism, as P.P. Grasse did.
JT>I will reprint Gould's article in a more extent form to let each
>decide for himself according to his own definition of "Darwinism."
>...From:
>_The Confusion About Evolution_ in "The New York Review of Books",
>Nov. 19, 1992. Stephen Jay Gould's review of _The Ant and the Peacock:
>Altruism and Sexual Selection from Darwin to Today_
>(Cambridge U. Press, 1991) by Helena Cronin
Thanks for this article John.
[...]
JT>But the ultimate failure of Cronin's adaptionism, as a general
>evolutionary model, appears most clearly when we consider the
>paleontological record. Darwin's vision may prevail in the here
>and now of immediate adaptive struggles. But if we cannot extend
>the small changes thereby produced into the grandeur of geological
>time to yield the full tree of life, then Darwin's domain is a
>limited corner of evolutionary explanation....if mass exctinctions
>are true breaks in continuity, if the slow building of adaptation
>in normal times does not extend into predicted success across mass
>exctinction boundaries, then extrapolationism fails and adaptationism
>succumbs.
Indeed, as creationists and non-creationist anti-Darwinians have
been saying for years! Gould's problem is that he has nothing to
put in its place. If adaptionism does not build organised complexity,
and Gould's species selection (even if it exists) cannot, then where
does it come from? Could it be...shock! horror! shudder!...God? :-).
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------