[...]
> with the dominant Neo-Darwinian theory. Especially since Darwinists
> do their best to downplay it, and the general public may not be
> aware of it.
[...]
> I do not impugn the integrity of evolutionary biologists at all. But
> the fact is that they do try to suppress dissent among their ranks
> for fear of giving support to creationists:
There has very recently been a big fight in the very public press about
the differences between the various camps at the 'high table,' replete
with all the necessary name-calling and wounded egos on both sides. I
can hardly believe you haven't been keeping track, so what do you expect
us to think here?
> "...I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my
> colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate
> about theory that brought new life to evolutionary biology. It
> provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion.
> Perhaps we should lie low and rally round the flag of Darwinism, at
> least for the moment-a kind of old-time religion on our part. But...if
> we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench
> our intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united
> front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost."
> (Gould S.J., "Evolution as Fact and Theory", "Hen's Teeth and
> Horse's Toes", 1983, pp261-262).
Gould is reacting to criticisms that he overstated his (and Eldredge's)
PE theory. I'm not familiar with who got after him for greasing
Creationists' axles, or where, but his retort is a good one. The
bottom line, though, is that this whole exchange is running contrary to
your thesis that there is some kind of pressure to keep quiet about
whatever flaws there are in evolutionary theory--it is funny that, to
support that idea, you quote Gould saying exactly the opposite, and he
has been one of the most public players in the debate.
> And confidence in the integrity of evolutionary biologists is not
> necessarily the same thing as confidence in the soundness of their
> theory. Indeed, if a theory was fundamentally unsound, one would expect
> major and irreconcilable differences to emerge that resists all attempts
> to paper over the cracks, which is in fact what we do find:
> Dissent within Darwinist ranks is far, far wider and deeper than in any
> other branch of science, at least that I am aware of. This dissent extends
> not to mere details but to the very fundamentals of the theory, and it
> has been going on now for nearly 140 years!
Dissent over the Copenhagen Interpretation started even before it got
that name! Are you going to start asking us to reject quantum theory
because there is deep and fundamental disagreement over the very heart
of the theory? Of course there is argument over the heart of modern-day
evolutionary theory! That's what makes it the heart! 140 years ago,
the heart was whether variations accounted for evolutionary change, and
whether that change accounted for the whole fossil record, and whether or
not there were extinctions, and such like. These have all been settled
(at least in evolutionary theory), and new arguments have been found.
The current Gould/Dawkins debate of which you are simultaneously claiming
that its publicity is exactly what we should expect since it is hopelessly
crack-papering, and its privacy is what we should expect since there is
some conspiracy to stifle debate has been going on for a few decades now,
but hardly comparable to the QM debate.
If you are looking for a science with no debate in it, you'll probably
have to found your own, or are you unawares that dozens of quotes
of Creationists disagreeing with each other can be found? :-)
Ahh, but these are signs of a vibrant and advancing theory, right, not
the leaks of some conspiracy of silence covering up complete
disillusionment on the part of the principals.
-Greg