I agree it's probably a good idea to leave this topic for now. The only thing
I wanted to clear up was that Goodman's writings were not "rubbish" or "nutty"
or the like. I called on Tattersall, and you and I agree there is some overlap
there (perhaps about as much as hominid brains). So my sole mission has been
accomplished.
In sum, I agree with the big picture as seen by Goodman and others we've
mentioned.
Just a few minor points before moving on.
<<My recollection of Taylor was that although he was not a creationist,
many of his criticisms of evolutionary theory seemed to be coming out of
young-earth literature, and Taylor didn't know enough to realize how
wrong they were.>>
No! That's 180 degrees incorrect. No wonder you've been thinking ill of the
old boy.
<< He claims, as part of his
"startling new theory", that modern man physically evolved from whatever
preceded him in only 5000 years, that these differences are far too
large and far too sudden to be accounted for by naturalistic selection
and that some form of intervention must have occurred, that there are no
fossils intermediate between us and whatever we evolved from, that
modern humans have a whole suite of mental and physical abilities (not
just language) that our predecessors didn't have.
It's these claims that separate Goodman from any experts, and it's these
claims which are lacking in evidence.>>
I don't agree with your conclusions. Leaving aside the 5,000 year number, just
a simple cross-reference with Tattersall reveals a BASIS for every claim. One
key example will suffice.
Goodman focuses in, rightly IMO, on the rapidity of the development of the
modern "package" of adaptations [e.g., p. 273].
Tattersall focuses in, rightly IMO, on the rapidity of the development of the
modern "package" of adaptations. [e.g., p. 238-39]
Goodman says something like "intervention" is probably necessary to explain
it. Tattersall merely calls it an "enigma."
So the only "startling" thing is Goodman's raising the possibility of
"interventionism." Tattersall doesn't do that, for obvious reasons. He's a
pure naturalist, and has to answer to his colleagues. But naturalism is
bogged down in a priori muck. For those of us, like Goodman, open to a greater
reality, the hypothesis is not startling in the least.
<<YOU made a pun about a "nut bowl", Tim
plays along with it (without calling anyone a nut), and suddenly you're
accusing him of ad hominems. >>
Tim was quite obviously putting Prof. W in the nut bowl. Context is all
important in these matters.
The tendency to use the term "nut" or some other pejorative term which
effectively marginalizes people (e.g., "rubbish"), is of a piece with the
history of the naturalistic program. Re-reading an interview with
Wickramasinghe last night, I came across a gem of a quote which I think sums
it up nicely. In pointing out some problems with evolutionary theory to
Stephen Jay Gould:
"He just shrugs his shoulders and says that there's a lot of things we don't
understand [Naturalism of the Gaps! -- JB]. There's a vagueness everywhere.
They are deeply uncomfortable. They are deeply threatened by the weight of the
evidence."
Which explains why the Priesthood Fallacy is trotted out against people like
Phil Johnson, and the Nuthouse Fallacy rears its ugly head with the Goodmans
and Wickramasinghes of this world.
Get these people dismissed early and often seems to be the strategy. But it
will not continue to work.
Check out this month's Commentary magazine, the NY intellectual journal, with
an article by David Berklinski called "The Deniable Darwin." It has already
drawn an angry response from Daniel Dennett ["Darwin's Dangerous Idea"] who
uses both the Priesthood AND Nuthouse Fallacies in his response!
Jim