[...]
>
>PM>Your error appears to lie in the assumption that classical darwinism
>>and creationism are the only choices.
>
SJ:==
>My "assumption" is that in the end "the only choice" is between the
>`blind watchmaker' ("classical darwinism") and "creation" by an
>Intelligent Designer. In the end, no theory of naturalistic evolution
>can get away from the step-by-step buildup of complexity that Dawkins
>rightly asserts is at the "very heart of the evolution theory":
>
>"It is the contention of the Darwinian world-view that both these
>provisos are met, and that slow, gradual, cumulative natural selection
>is the ultimate explanation for our existence. If there are versions of
>the evolution theory that deny slow gradualism, and deny the central
>role of natural selection, they may be true in particular cases. But
>they cannot be the whole truth, for they deny the very heart of the
>evolution theory, which gives it the power to dissolve astronomical
>improbabilities and explain prodigies of apparent miracle." (Dawkins
>R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, p318)
>
First let me thank you for pointing out the excellent review:
"Billions and Billions of Demons" by Lewontin. In your discussion
of this you wrote:
SJ:====================================
Lewontin includes Dawkins among "popularizers" who have "put unsubstantiated
assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they
have retailed in the market":
"As to assertions; without adequate evidence, the literature of science
is filled with them especially the literature of popular science writing.
Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers"
includes E. O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of
whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at
the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market."
(Lewontin R., "Billions and Billions of Demons", review of "The
Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl
Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997, pp30-31)
Lewontin adds that he is worried that sientists may believe what Dawkins
(and Wilson) tell them about evolution:
"Who am I to believe that quantum physics if not Steven Weinberg,
or about the solar system if not Carl Sagan? What worries me is that
they [other scientists] may believe what Dawkins and Wilson tell
them about evolution." (Lewontin R., ibid., pp30-31)
======end================================================
So, Lewontin is worried that scientists might believe what
Dawkins tells them about evolution. In view of Lewontin's words
of caution, why do you continue to believe what Dawkins tells
you about evolution?
Maybe Gould's criticisms of Darwinian Fundamentalism
are valid and Dawkins is just plain wrong about this grand claim.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"If cucumbers had anti-gravity,
sunsets would be more interesting"
-- Wesley Elsberry