On Fri, 11 Jul 1997 00:56:56 -0400, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...}
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":
>
>"...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)
BH>First let me thank you for pointing out the excellent review:
>"Billions and Billions of Demons" by Lewontin.
Thanks for your thanks. I believe that Lewontin's review will be a
milestone in the Creation v Evolution debate. Lewontin acknowledges
all that Phil Johnson has been saying, that it is is necessary to
have an apriori commitment to materialism to keep Darwinism going.
Phil can be expected to use this as a beachhead in his debate with
Darwinists. His basic position is that if materialist *philosophy*
is essential to Darwinism, then Darwinists have no right as
scientists to foist their philosophy on the majority who do not
hold the same philosophy that matter is all there is.
BH>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":...Lewontin
>adds that he is worried that sientists may believe what
>Dawkins...tell them about evolution: " (Lewontin R., ibid.,
>pp30-31)
BH>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?
I thought it was quite clear above, especially since I have said it
many times before. Here it is again:
"...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":
IOW both Dawkins and Lewontin are both right and therefore both
wrong:
1. Dawkins is right that the Neo-Darwinist `blind watchmaker' is the
only fully naturalistic mechanism that *even in principle* could
build the design of living things;
2. Lewontin is right that the Neo-Darwinist `blind watchmaker' could
not build the design of living things.
Therefore:
3. No fully naturalistic mechanism did build the design of living
things.
BH>Maybe Gould's criticisms of Darwinian Fundamentalism
>are valid and Dawkins is just plain wrong about this grand claim.
Agreed. "Gould's criticisms...are valid" that "Dawkins" is "wrong".
But Dawkins is right that if he is wrong, then so is fully
naturalistic evolution wrong.
BTW, what Gould calls "Darwinian Fundamentalism" is really classical
Neo-Darwinism. So when Gould says that "Darwinian Fundamentalism" is
wrong he is really saying that *classical Neo-Darwinism* is wrong.
Gould's problem is that he has nothing to put in its place.
Dawkins is 100% right that "versions of the evolution theory that
deny slow gradualism, and deny the central role of natural
selection...deny the very heart of the evolution theory". Gould and
Lewontin have just ripped 'the very heart" out "of the evolution
theory". Things without hearts don't live for very long!
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------