On Mon, 8 Jan 1996 16:41:25 -0500 you wrote:
SJ>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.
BH>So, either Gould is lying or he is so confused that he doesn't even
>know what his own views are. In either case he is no longer a
>credible witness (to extend your legal metaphor) and cannot be
>trusted when he talks about "the trade secret of paleontology".
No. I do not believe Gould is "lying", nor do I believe he is
"confused", so I do not accept your extension of my argument. IMHO
Gould is honestly trying to reconcile the fossil evidence for
saltation with Neo-Darwinian denial of same.
BH>I'm curious why you think a quote from Johnson provides "evidence"
>that Gould is a "pre-Darwinian saltationist". Isn't it better to
>ask Gould? And, in the event that you don't trust his answer,
>you should at least establish this from *his* writings rather than
>Johnsons.
No. I believe Johnson's analysis of Gould is spot on. As Johnson
mentions in RITB, he did "ask Gould" and received no reply:
"My opinion is that Cronin's book was very good in its way (as an
application of Dawkins's logic to certain important problems of
evolutionary biology) and that Gould's review came very close to
repudiating Darwinism in favor of a concept of "evolution" that
resembles the pre-Darwinian catastrophism of Georges Cuvier. I wrote
to Gould after this review to suggest that he is no more a Darwinist
than I am, and that he refuses to acknowledge this only because he
fears the metaphysical consequences. He did not answer. (Johnson
P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
Ill., 1995, p227-228)
BH>My own opinion on this is that Gould's enemies (the
>ultra-Darwinians) try to put the saltationist label on him in an
>attempt to discredit both him and punk eek. To borrow Phil's
>terminology, they are attempting to marginalize him.
There is an element of truth in this, but IMHO it is not the whole
story. Gould has in his own writings given plenty of evidence that
there is a strong thread of saltationism in his thinking. His
rejection of Dawkins gene selection model leaves him almost
automatically in the saltationist camp.
BH>Now, given Johnson's "complaints" about theists being marginalized
>by naturalists I'm sure we are all in agreement that Phil is not
>trying to marginalize Gould with this saltation business, right?
Agreed. Gould may have finally succeded in marginalising himself?
SJ>"Gould and Eldredge have consistently described punctuated
>equilibrium as a Darwinist theory, not a saltationist repudiation of
>Darwinism.
BH>I am thankful that Phil included this sentence.
And to me for not replacing it with ellipses?
[...]
BH>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).
BH>OK, OK, I admit it was a cheap shot :-). Please accept my most
>humble apology.
Apology accepted. Thank you. :-)
SJ>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:
BH>Here you go again, Stephen ;-). Of course its not a threat
>to theism.
In was only answering *your* point about it making me "squirm". Why
would it make me "squirm" if it was not "a threat to theism"?
>I have had many nice surprises during my search through the
>complexity/self-org literature. I suppose this shouldn't be
>too surprising since John Casti refers to this field as
>"the science of surprise" ;-).
>
>One surprise was the bluntness with which these scientists
>voice their opposition to the neo-Darwinian paradigm. Another
>surpise was how many of these individuals are strongly religious.
>I recently received two books from inter-library loan:
>
> <Chaos and Complexity: Discovering the Surprising Patterns
> of Science and Technology>, Brian Kaye, VCH, 1993.
>
> <Chaos and Order: The Complex Structure of Living Systems>,
> Friedrich Cramer, VCH, 1993.
>
>[...]
Thanks for the above.
BH>I have found much to like in Johnson's books DoT and RitB, but also
>much to dislike, this quote being a good example of the latter.
>
>Note that Johnson doesn't actually discuss self-organization, there
>is just a lot of rhetoric "rulers of science", "damage control
>mechanisms" "sinking ship".
There is a limit to what he can cover. His books are primarily about
Darwinism. I as a comparative beginner to the Creation - Evolution
debate appreciate what he says, without necessarily agreeing with it.
BH>I think Johnson misses an opportunity to put things on a positive
>rather than a negative note. There are many positives to come out
>of the "emerging science of complexity" and, in fact, the goals
>of many in this group are very close to some of Phil's goals. Here
>are another couple of quotes from self-org types. Particularly
>note the second quote from Dyke. Apart from a few stray sentences
>here and there it would not be too hard to imagine that these
>words came from Phil...
>
[...]
> -- C. Dyke, "Complexity and Closure", <Evolution at a
> Crossroads: The New Biology and the New Philosophy
> of Science>, Editors D.J. Depew and B.H. Weber,
> MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985, pp. 97-131.
Thanks again. It does sound a bit like Phil. But I think you take
Phil's negativism against self-organisation a bit too seriously:
"The sinking ship. I beg readers' indulgence for the perhaps overly
dramatic metaphor of the final paragraph. A writer should be allowed
his bit of fun. The reference to "high-tech" damage-control
mechanisms is to the school represented by Stuart Kauffman's Origins
of Order (1993)..." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p213).
SJ>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?
BH>IMHO, no. If the self-orgs are successful then we will have a new
>anthropic principle (we can call it the BAP "biological anthropic
>principle"). Self-organization is the antithesis of the Blind
>Watchmaker thesis that Dawkins needs in order to be "an intellectually
>fulfilled atheist".
Agreed. It might point to higher mysteries beyond itself and
therefore be potentially consistent with theism.
Whatever the result, if I was Dawkins, I would be feeling a bit
threatened! :-)
BTW, I have been re-reading The Blind Watchmaker and I found this
great Progressive Creation passage:
"Sitting somewhere in this huge mathematical space are humans and
hyenas, amoebas and aardvarks, flatworms and squids, dodos and
dinosaurs. In theory, if we were skilled enough at genetic
engineering, we could move from any point in animal space to any other
point. From any starting point we could move through the maze in such
a way as to recreate the dodo, the tyrannosaur and trilobites. IF
ONLY WE KNEW WHICH GENES TO TINKER WITH, WHICH BITS OF
CHROMOSOME TO DUPLICATE, INVERT OR DELETE. I doubt if we shall
ever know enough to do it, but these dear dead creatures are lurking
there
forever in their private comers of that huge genetic hypervolume,
waiting
to be found if we but had the knowledge to navigate the right course
through
the maze.". (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London,
1991, p73-74 emphasis mine)
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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------