On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 08:31:09 -0800 (PST), Greg Billock wrote:
[...]
>>GB>Dissent over the Copenhagen Interpretation...Are you...
>>asking us to reject quantum theory because there is deep and fundamental
>>disagreement over the very heart of the theory?
>SJ>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)...I have not noticed quantum
>>theorists calling each other "dogs" in the New York Review!
GB>OK, so you think the *type* and *severity* of the debate is what makes
>the difference.
I say that the "severity of the debate" is a major factor, but not the
only one. The *content* of the debate itself is very important. Basically
the Dawkins side says that from from their specialties (Biology, Genetics)
evolution could only have happened by Neo-Darwinian, tiny step-by-step,
increments over long periods of time. But the Gould camp say that from
their specialty (Palaeontology) that the fossil record does not support
that hypothesis. This is a festering sore within Darwinism that has been
going on since Darwin's day, and shows no signs of ever being resolved.
There always have been and it seems always will be, two Darwinist camps
(the theoreticians vs the empiricists) locked in a civil war which
neither side can win. It seems to me that both sides are right about each
other's position and therefore both sides are wrong about their own. Dawkins
is right that naturalistic evolution can only happen by Neo-Darwinian
mechanisms. Gould is right that evolution did not in fact happen that way.
So the obvious answer is that it was not *naturalistic* evolution, ie.
it was naturalistic evolution with supernatural assistance. That is,
it was progressive (mediate) creation!
GB>For better or worse, debates like this have a history in biology, and
>haven't led to the emminent demise of evolutionary theory for a long time.
>What makes you think this one is different, and are you willing to back up
>your intuition with a concrete prediction about when the final snap will
>come, if you are right?
I do not necessarily predict "the emminent demise of evolutionary
theory". Indeed, I believe that "evolutionary theory" will continue,
but in a weakened form. Because of the internal contradictions in
"evolutionary theory", I predict that scientific naturalists will be be
unable to maintain their near-monopoly in biology, and science in
general, and will have to allow other voices (eg. Intelligent Design) to
be heard. I further predict that ID will continue to gain ground and in
the early 21st century will become a viable alternative paradigm for
science. But I do not necessarily predict that ID will become
dominant or even more popular than materialistic- naturalism.
>>GB>Of course there is argument over the heart of modern-day
>>>evolutionary theory! That's what makes it the heart!
>SJ>...The "heart" of evolutionary theory is (and always must be)
>>about the creative power of the `blind watchmaker', natural
>>selection: "..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...explain prodigies of apparent miracle."
>>(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1986, p318)
GB>Well, of course that's what Dawkins thinks the 'heart' is, since
>that's his particular hobby horse. Others think it of less importance.
Disagree. Dawkins is absolutely right. There is *no* other naturalistic
alternative to the `blind watchmaker'. Even Gould admits this:
"...may I state for the record that I (along with all other Darwinian
pluralists) do not deny either the existence and central importance of
adaptation, or the production of adaptation by natural selection. Yes,
eyes are for seeing and feet are for moving. And, yes again, I know of
no scientific mechanism other than natural selection with the proven
power to build structures of such eminently workable design." (Gould
S.J., "Darwinian Fundamentalism", New York Review of Books,
June 12, 1997.
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997061234F
@p3)
GB>Perhaps, though, since you side with Dawkins here, you can
>understand the criticisms that side in this fight is making against
>Gould, and, since your sympathies are there, why Gould's analysis
>of the fight should need interpretation.
I don't "side" with either Dawkins or Gould. I thibnk they are *both*
wrong! But I think that Gould is being very clever in painting
Dawkins, Dennett and Maynard Smith as "ultra-Darwinists", when really
they are the true Darwinists.
>>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.
>SJ>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.
GB>You've claimed that Darwinists have 'tried to keep their disagreements
>private' but that they are severe enough to have broken out anyway. You
>perhaps didn't use the word, but if this isn't a conspiracy, I'm not sure
>what qualifies.
Who are they supposed to be conspiring against? Conspiracies are usually
(if not by definition) by those out of power against those in power. In
this case the Darwinists are already in power and have almost total
control of education, government, the law and the media. My Oxford
Dictionary defines "conspiracy" as "combination for unlawful purpose":
"conspiracy n. Conspiring; combination for unlawful purpose; plot.
conspirator n. conspiratorial adj. conspirator ads.
conspire v. Combine privily for unlawful purpose, esp. treason,
murder, sedition; combine, concur (to do); plot, devise."
(Coulson J., et al, eds., "The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary", Book
Club Associates: London, Second Edition, 1980, p181)
Since Darwinists have the full power of the law behind them, it is
difficult to see how you can claim that trying to keep their disagreements
private is a "conspiracy".
GB>The thing that catches me off guard, though, is that you
>are using the very public debate as evidence that there is a conspiracy!
No. I am not claiming their is a "conspiracy" at all-that is *your* word,
not mine.
GB>That is, the arguments are SO bad that they got out anyway. It is a
>hallmark of conspiracy theories that any evidence--even counterindicative
>evidence--can be used to support them.
Sorry, but I am *not* claiming any "conspiracy"! How about debating what
I actually claim-not what *you* imagine that I claim.
GB>I'll suggest an alternate theory for your consideration: the public
>cares even less about evolutionary theory than it does about
>quantum physics, which at least sounds neat and doesn't yet so
>personal. Thus, it takes quite a vicious argument to become public.
Sorry, but your claim that the "the public cares even less about evolutionary
theory than it does about quantum physics", is is so obviously false that it
doesn't need refutation!
GB>>To clarify this, I'll make a prediction: there will be more articles in the
>public press about physics in 1998 than about evolutionary biology.
>This will be true EVEN IF there is some big new fight in biology to report.
This vague prediction could not be falsified. Which "public press"? And who
is going to keep count?
Steve
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------