On Wed, 4 Feb 1998 09:07:39 -0800 (PST), Greg Billock wrote:
[...]
>SJ>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.
[...]
>SJ>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:
GB>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 don't expect you to think anything one way or the other, but if you are
talking about Gould's "Darwinist Fundamentalism" attack on Dennett and
Maynard Smith, I point out that I first brought it to the attention
of Reflectorites:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen Jones" <sejones@ibm.net>
To: "evolution@calvin.edu" <evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 97 21:16:15 +0800
Subject: Re: Gould's "Pluralism" vs "Darwinist Fundamentalism"
[...]
And Darwinism is collapsing right now before our very eyes. As I have
recently pointed out, in the New York Review of Books, read by the
intellectual elite of America, Gould has labelled three leading classical
Neo-Darwinists, Dennett, Dawkins and Maynard Smith, as "Darwinist
Fundamentalists". See:
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997061234F
and
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997062647F
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if anything has been happening since then, I was on an overseas trip
from mid-September to mid-December 1997, so I may not be aware of any
subsequent public dirty-linen airing.
>SJ>"...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).
GB>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.
Disagree. Gould is arguing against "a trend" that he was "beginning to
discern among" his "colleagues" that they "mute the healthy debate
about theory". Indeed, in one of his New York Review articles
Gould reveals that both sides are concious of avoiding public
criticism of the other for fear of helping the creationists:
"Maynard Smith began his supposed analysis of ultraDarwinian
criticism with the following gratuitous remark: Gould occupies a
rather curious position, particularly on his side of the Atlantic.
Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by
non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast,
the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend
to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly
worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly
criticized because he is at least on our side against the
creationists....We will not win this most important of all battles if we
descend to the same tactics of backbiting and anathematization that
characterize our true opponents." (Gould S.J., "Darwinian
Fundamentalism", New York Review of Books, June 12, 1997
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997061234F
@p7)
>SJ>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!
GB>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 "Dissent" within science, but my assessment is that
this is not as fundamental as exists between leading Darwinists (eg.
Gould and Dawkins/Dennett/Maynard Smith). As I understand it, the
Copenhagen Interpretation is (as the name implies) just an *interpretation*.
And I have not noticed quantum theorists calling each other "dogs" in the
New York Review!
GB>Of course there is argument over the heart of modern-day
>evolutionary theory! That's what makes it the heart!
No. The "heart" of evolutionary theory is (and always must be) about
the creative power of the `blind watchmaker', natural selection:
"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", 1986, p318)
GB>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 above examples are too vague for me to respond meaningfully. Maybe
you could clarify what exactly they were and/or post some quotes to
illustrate them?
GB>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.
I have never claimed (nor do I believe) that there is a "conspiracy" (that
is your word not mine).
My claim is that evolutionists have tried to keep their disagreements
private, but the divisions have become so bitter, that they were unable to
prevent it spilling over into the public arena.
GBV>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? :-)
Henry Morris would be pleased that you implicitly equate Darwinism with
creationism in order to compare them with each other! And creationists do not
usually call those other side "dogs", especially in the nation's leading
journal!
But this dispute between the Gould and Dawkins (via Dennett and Maynard Smith)
camps, is far deeper, more bitter than the usual scientific debate. Here is a
quote from Dennett virtually accusing Gould of "systematically misleading
Americans about what evolution is":
"As Robert Wright (1990, p. 30) puts it, Gould is "America's
evolutionist laureate. If he has been systematically misleading
Americans about what evolution is and what it means, that amounts
to a lot of intellectual damage." (Dennett D.C., "Darwin's Dangerous
Idea", 1995, p265)
Gould's colleague and friend at Harvard, Richard Lewontin has
publicly in the same New York Review, said of "contemporary
science-popularizers", including "E. O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and
Richard Dawkins", that they have "each..put unsubstantiated
assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories
they have retailed in the market" and Lewontin "worries" that
scientists "may believe what Dawkins and Wilson tell them about
evolution." (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)
Furthermore, the debate among Darwinists is more culturally
significant than the usual scientific debate. The public couldn't care less
if physicists disagree about interpretations of quantum theory, but if
Darwinism is wrong, then modern secular man has no creation story:
"One might have expected that a theory of such cardinal importance,
a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something
more than metaphysics, something more than a myth. Ultimately the
Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great
cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century." (Denton M., "Evolution:
A Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp358-359)
GB>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.
Again, I do not claim that this is a "conspiracy"-this is your word, not
mine. And time will tell whether "these are signs of a vibrant and advancing
theory" or the death rattle of Darwinism.
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
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------