On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 10:56:55 -0800 (PST), Greg Billock wrote:
[...]
>>GB>OK, so you think the *type* and *severity* of the debate is what makes
>>>the difference.
>SJ>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.
GB>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.
You have not "explained" "what the groups are arguing about". I
believe that it is *you* who "have a misunderstanding of" of how
fundamental is the rift between the Gould and Dawkins camp. But we
will have to agree to differ. My prediction is the rift between the
Dawkins and Gould camps will continue to widen and possibly grow even
more acrimonious. But there is one fly in the ointment - Gould
will hasbecomes the next president-elect of the AAAS (see
http://www.aaas.org/Communications/gould.htm), so it might not
be seemly for him to be attacked or to counter-attack, for a while!
>SJ>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>So you think ID papers will be published in _Nature_ when?
Not if the scientific journals like NATURE, SCIENCE and SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN continue with their apriori committment to materialistic-
naturalistism. But evolutionist Arthur Shapiro foresees the growth
of the ID movement to a point where journals like SCIENCE will have
to decide whether to run high-quality ID articles:
"The Creation Hypothesis received a remarkably respectful review in
Creation/Evolution, a strongly anticreationist journal. Reviewer
Arthur Shapiro, professor of zoology at the Davis campus of the
University of California, concluded with this paragraph:
`I can see Science in the year 2000 running a major feature article
on the spread of theistic science as a parallel scientific culture.
I can see interviews with the leading figures in history and
philosophy of science about how and why this happened. For the
moment, the authors of The Creation Hypothesis are realistically
defensive. They know their way of looking at the world will not be
generally accepted and that they will be restricted for a while to
their own journals. They also know that they will be under intense
pressure to demonstrate respectability by weeding out crackpots,
kooks and purveyors of young- earth snake oil. If they are
successful, the day will come when the editorial board of Science
will convene in emergency session to decide what to do about a paper
which is of the highest quality and utterly unexceptionable, of great
and broad interest, and which proceeds from the prior assumption of
intelligent design. For a preview of that crisis, you should read
this book. Of course, if you are smug enough to think "theistic
science" is an oxymoron, you won't."
(Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", 1995, p239)
If the journals refuse to publish on philosophical grounds, then ID
will have to develop its own scientific journals.
>>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.
>SJ>Disagree. Dawkins is absolutely right. There is *no* other naturalistic
>>alternative to the `blind watchmaker'. Even Gould admits this:
GB>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.
Greg, at least *I* have posted excerpts from "the debate", whereas
you have just made unsubstantiated comments about your understanding
of my understanding of it! How about resolving this issue by *you*
citing some excerpts from "the debate" by the protagonists to support
your assertions?
>>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.
>SJ>I don't "side" with either Dawkins or Gould. I think 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>Since when did you become the pope of Darwinism, able to discern who
>is the "true" Darwinist and who isn't?
I am not the "pope" of anything. I just read the literature on
*both* sides and make up my own mind. And I post excerpts from that
literature to support my claims, which is more than you have done to
date!
GB>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.
Earlier you claimed that "these are signs of a vibrant and advancing
theory", but now you say it is a "fight" that is "vicious"! At least
we both agree on the last part!
GB>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.
I had just said "I don't `side' with either Dawkins or Gould. I
think they are *both* wrong!" That I think that Dawkins and Maynard
Smith are the "the true Darwinists" does not mean that I "side" with
them. I think Gould is right about the fossil evidence, too.
And, I did not I did not say that "Gould...is fighting a losing
battle"- it is quite likely he will win, because: a) he is a
brilliant advocate; and b) the evidence is so against Neo-Darwinism.
But even if Gould wins the battle against Dawkins, he will have lost
the war, because in the absence of a Creator, *only* a Dawkins-style
Neo-Darwinist `blind watchmaker' can build life's complex designs:
"In any case, if we repudiate creationism, divine or vitalistic
guidance, and the extremer forms of orthogenesis, as originators of
adaptation, we must (unless we confess total ignorance and abandon
for the time any attempts at explanation) invoke natural selection-or
at any rate must do so whenever an adaptive structure obviously
involves a number of separate characters, and therefore demands a
number of separate steps for its origin. A one-character,
single-step adaptation might clearly be the result of mutation; once
the mutation had taken place, it would be preserved by natural
selection, but selection would have played no part in its origin.
But when two or more steps are necessary, it becomes inconceivable
that they shall have originated simultaneously. The first mutation
must have been spread through the population-by selection before the
second could be combined with it, the combination of the first two in
turn selected before the third could be added, and so on with each
successive step. The improbability of an origin in which selection
has not played a part becomes larger with each new step. Most
adaptations clearly involve many separate steps or characters: one
need only think of the detailed resemblance of a close mimic to its
model, the flying qualities of a bird's wing, the streamlining of
secondary aquatics like ichthyosaurs or whales. When we can study
actual adaptive evolution with the aid of fossils, as with the hooves
of horses or the molar teeth of elephants, we find that it is
steadily directional over tens of millions of years, and must
therefore have involved a very large number of steps. The
improbability is therefore enormous that such progressive adaptations
can have arisen without the operation of some agency which can
gradually accumulate and combine a number of contributory changes:
and natural selection is the only such agency that we know." (Huxley
J., "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis", 1945 reprint, p473)
>>>SJ>Again, I do not claim that this is a "conspiracy"-this is your
>>>>word, not mine...
>>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.
>SJ>Who are they supposed to be conspiring against? Conspiracies are usually
GB>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.
Darwinists trying to keep their disagreements private to avoid giving
`ammunition' to creationists is not a "conspiracy", any more than
cabinet meetings held in private to avoid giving political ammunition
to the opposition party, or business meetings held in private to
avoid giving an advantage to competitors, are conspiracies! An
essential element of a conspiracy is its *unlawful* nature, and
Darwinists have the law firmly on their side.
GB>[Stephen hastily claims that the idea that the public is more interested
>in physics than evolution is obviously silly]
It wasn't "hastily" at all-I still stand by what I said. But you are
shifting ground. Your original claim was that "the public cares even
less about evolutionary theory than it does about QUANTUM physics"
(my emphasis). First it was the "Copenhagen Interpretation", then it
was "quantum physics", now its just plain old "physics"!
GB>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...
If you claim that these are surrogates for "the public press", then
how how about now doing a search on Alta Vista or the LA Times
archive for "quantum physics" compared with "evolution", and post
that result.
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------