On Tue, 2 Jan 1996 10:31:19 -0500 you wrote:
SJ>Agreed. This is why creationists take "comfort" in Gould's quotes.
>Fundamentally Gould is a pre-Darwinian saltationist:
>Michael Ruse has an interesting essay on punctuationalism,
>"Is the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium a New Paradigm?"
>in <The Darwinian Paradigm>, Routledge, 1989.
[...]
BH>I should say that Gould today (personal communication)
> categorically denies that he himself was ever a saltationist
> in Goldschmidt's or anyone else's sense. And it is certainly
> true that never in print did he enrol under a saltationist
> banner. What I think one can fairly say, however, is that
> Gould (especially) was starting to think of evolution's
> processes through a lens or filter of discontinuity
> (to use a metaphor). In his own mind, he was starting to
> highlight the essential abruptness of evolution, as opposed
> to its continuity - just as (say), a man falling in love
> might start to regard a woman in a new light, as a person
> of sexual attraction rather than as a lawyer or professor.
> Neither the continuity nor the profession is denied absolutely.
> They just no longer seem so important.
[...]
BH>Now a couple of points. Given that Gould denies being or ever
>having been a saltationist, your flat assertion that he is
>is unconvincing.
Of course "Gould denies being...a saltationist". O.J. denies he did
it - does that mean he didn't? Gould has always denied he is a
saltationist, but that does not change the fact that many observers
think that essentially he really is.
Nor was my statement that "Fundamentally Gould is a pre-Darwinian
saltationist" a "flat assertion". It was a heading leading to a quote
by Johnson. Perhaps I should have put an IMHO in front of it, but
everything I write is IMHO! :-) It was a statement of *my opinion*
based on the evidence conained in the quote that followed it, which
said:
"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...As a scientific theory, "saltationist
evolution" is...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", 1963, pp61-62).
My "flat assertion" is qualified by the quote that followed it. In
the nature of the case, it would be preposterous for me to make a
"flat assertion" (in an absolute sense), about what Gould thinks about
saltationism, especially since Ruse thinks there is a large subjective
and emotional element in Gould's thought on this topic.
[...]
SJ>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? :-).
BH>And if the self-organizationalists are successful? What will
>you conclude? That God wasn't involved? Actually, while they
>have a long way to go, I think they have had enough success in
>explaining the emergence of organized complexity to make you
>squirm a little ;-).
Sadly, you seem to misjudge me. I will not "squirm" if the
self-organizationalists" succeed in explaining the emergence of
organized complexity, for "Love...rejoices with the truth" (1Cor
13:6). I don't know much about the "the self-organizationalists", so
I can't discuss their position in detail. But Johnson does not feel
it is much of a threat to theism:
"The reference to "high-tech" damage-control mechanisms is to the
school represented by Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order (1993). I
assume this is what Gould had in mind when he referred to "the
self-organizing properties of molecules and other physical systems."
If the rulers of science really mean to jump into this lifeboat, I
will be happy to participate in the ensuing discussion, but I think
that after assessing the prospects they will elect to stay on the
sinking ship and keep trying to plug the holes." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second
Edition, 1993, p213).
However, if the self-organizationalists are successful in explaining
the emergence of organized complexity, I will first examine their
evidence to see if it indicates whether or not God was involved. If
the self-organizationalists (or anyone else) are successful in
explaining the emergence of organized complexity 100%
naturalistically, then I will have to re-think my entire position. If
life, the universe and everything can be explained 100%
naturalistically, then maybe the intellectually honest thing to do is
for me to become an atheist again?
But I don't think the self-organizationalists or anyone else will be
successful at a 100% naturalistic explanation of organized complexity.
I am prepared, along with Johnson, to run that risk which is part and
parcel of having a falsifiable position:
"...If the blind watchmaker thesis is true, then naturalism deserves
to rule, but I am addressing those who think the thesis is false, or
at least are willing to consider the possibility that it may be false.
Such persons need to be willing to challenge false doctrines, not on
the basis of prejudice or blind adherence to a tradition, but with
clear-minded, reasoned arguments. They also need to be working on a
positive understanding of a theistic view of reality, one that allows
natural science to find its proper place as an important but not
all-important part of the life of the mind. There is a risk in
undertaking such a project, of course, as the theistic evolutionists
constantly remind us by referring to the need to avoid resorting to a
"God of the gaps." If the naturalistic understanding of reality is
truly correct and complete, then God will have to retreat out of the
cosmos altogether. I do not think the risk is very great, but in any
case I do not think theists should meet it with a preemptive
surrender." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press:
Illinois, Second Edition, 1993, p169-170)
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------