Howe, in a Nov 93 letter, said that Patterson had "begun to see
macroevolution as some sort of bad dream when it comes to the science
involved". Dodson expressed skepticism, not trusting the short
quotations in Sunderland's article. He had reviewed a popular book on
evolution by Patterson a couple of years previously, and said that
Patterson's thinking would have to have metamorphosed overnight for
Sunderland's article to be valid.
Dodson, after receiving a full copy of Patterson's speech, admitted that
Sunderland's quotes were representative of the whole speech, and
inconsistent with Patterson's recent book. He did have some
reservations about the transcript, and wrote to Patterson asking whether
the transcript was reasonably accurate, and "does it represent your
current thinking on the subject?".
Patterson replied that the transcript was "garbled and nonsensical in
places...but I think it is roughly accurate.". "He replies to the
second question with a categorical "No." He had thought that he was
talking only to a group of professional systematists and he was
deliberately presenting a viewpoint calculated to provoke discussion.
He refers to "infiltration by creationists" and to "surreptitious use of
tape recorders." His conclusion is that "treating evolutionary theory
as axiomatic has not been beneficial in systematics, but I am in no way
a creationist, and have no respect for the views or arguments of the
creationist lobby." Dodson later adds "One further comment: Patterson
refers to "surreptitious use of tape recorders." Evidently, Sunderland
did not ask for permission to record the seminar."
Howe got into quite a snit over that letter, seeming, for no apparent
reason, to take it as a personal affront. He did add that, according to
Sunderland, Sunderland had not attended or taped the Patterson talk, but
got the tape from one of two people who had taped it. He suggested that
instead of finding out what Patterson really meant, Dobson and
evolutionists in general should address the "weighty problems" that
Patterson had raised.
Dodson replied and retracted his suggestion that Sunderland might have
been at fault, but maintained (correctly, I think) that it had been a
reasonable question. He agreed, in a later letter, with Patterson's
statement that treating evolution as axiomatic in taxonomy was not
helpful. He expressed the reservation that where Patterson had shown
"deep unrest" was in biochemistry, outside of his own fields of
expertise of paleontology and taxonomy. Where he did address his own
fields of expertise, Patterson was, in Dobson's opinion, participating
in a squabble among taxonomists, rather than raising problems about
evolutionary theory.
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (970) 223-5100 x9765