I think you have a misunderstanding of what the groups are arguing about.
Since this has been explained here before, I'm not going to take the
time to go over it again for you.
> 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.
So you think ID papers will be published in _Nature_ when?
> 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:
See above. You don't seem to understand the substance of the debate. If
you did, you would know that your Gould quotes don't address the issue.
> 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.
Since when did you become the pope of Darwinism, able to discern who
is the "true" Darwinist and who isn't? This is exactly the reason that
the fight is fairly vicious, as these things go--both think that their
approach ought to be the mainstream. Again, since you side with Dawkins
in the fight, perhaps it is more clear why Gould shouldn't be taken at
face value, since (according to Dawkins and you) he is fighting a losing
battle.
> >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
Ummm, us? Trying to cover up the dispute so that folks like us won't
see that they're disagreements mask a hollow shell of empty theory, blah,
blah, blah. I'm surprised you had to ask. You said as much in your
original post.
[Stephen hastily claims that the idea that the public is more interested
in physics than evolution is obviously silly]
What can I say? Altavista finds 127,717 articles on "evolution" and
321,871 on "physics". LA Times Archive Search (1997) gets marginally
more hits (33 vs 30) for physics and (scientist or scientists).
(Astronomy adds another 20) Looks like the difference is not as
much as I'd thought...
-Greg