On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 09:39:15 -0800 (PST), Greg Billock wrote:
[...]
>>GB>I think you have a misunderstanding of what the groups are arguing about.
>>>Since this has been explained here before...
>SJ>You have not "explained" "what the groups are arguing about"...But we
>>will have to agree to differ...
GB>I don't think we disagree about the severity (as you pointed out
>below); we disagree about the nature of it (so far as I can tell).
Agree that we disagree. But that is different from your earlier claim that I
misunderstand.
>>GB>...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.
>SJ>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>We seem to be reading the same materials, which have been referenced.
>I'm at a loss to explain your view of them.
OK, but that you are at a loss to explain my view is different from
your earlier claim that my view was wrong. The test will be what
happens in the future. If you are right that this is a normal,
vigorous, healthy debate like other scientific debates, then Gould
and Dawkins (or at least their followers) should eventually resolve
their differences. OTOH, if I am right, and this is a deep-seated
and irreconcilable rift caused by the failure of the
materialist-naturalist paradigm to cope with the evidence, then the
distance between the Gould and Dawkins' camps should not get smaller
and even get wider.
>>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.
>SJ>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>Actually, I wondered whether you saw fights in the creationist camp (i.e.
>OEC vs. YEC) as these "signs".
AFAIK, what fights there have been between OECs and YECs (eg. Hugh
Ross vs the ICR, etc), have been fairly polite affairs.
GB>I think the High Table fights are signs that egos are getting involved
>in the scientific debate, which debate may be a good sign, but the ego
>business will probably only obscure any progress (if not outright hinder)
>that is made, so it is hard to declare on it one way or the other.
No doubt there are egos involved, but it is unbelievable that this
is the sole explanation. The real explanation is the frustration
caused by the intractable problems in Neo-Darwinist theory itself in
failing to fit the facts, and yet being the only plausible
naturalistic theory. Darwinism is unique among scientific theories
in the length of time (over four generations) its core theory has
been under dispute, as Jaki points out:
"He [Darwin] recognized, however, that there was something
unsatisfactory with the "how" he held high, or the selective impact
of environment on the fact that offspring were always, however
slightly, different from their parents. That "how," supported by
genetics as it may be, is still elusive. Indeed, so elusive as to
have produced a unique feature in the history of science. Whereas
in physics and chemistry the conversion of scientists to a new major
theory becomes complete within one generation, in biology a
respectable minority has maintained itself for now over four
generations against the majority position represented by Darwinists.
The latest evidence of the deep dissatisfaction felt about Darwinism
has come from strictly Darwinistic circles. Despair about Darwinism
is the driving force behind that recent rush to the idea of
punctuated evolution. In no sense an explanation, the theory of
punctuated evolution is a mere verbalization demanded by the fact
that the geological record almost invariably shows bursts of new
forms and hardly ever a slow gradual process as demanded by
classical Darwinism." (Jaki S.L., "The Absolute beneath the
Relative and Other Essays", 1988, p191)
>>GB>Again, since you side with Dawkins in the fight...
>SJ>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.
GB>Well, that's what I meant by 'side'--as in 'take the side of'. (Which
>you manifestly do.)
No. You are ignoring that I also say above that "I think Gould is
right about the fossil evidence, too". If you want to say that I
"take the side" of anyone, then you should say I "take the side" of
*both* Dawkins *and* Gould!
But my point all along has been that:
1) I "take the side" (if I am to use your words) of Dawkins in his
claim that the Neo-Darwinist `blind watchmaker' theory of the
gradual step-by-step cumulative preservation by natural selection of
tiny incremental improvements in adaptability to local environments is
the only materialist-naturalistic theory that can explain life's complex
designs in the absence of a Designer; and
2) I "take the side" (again to use your words) of Gould in his claim that the
fossil record does not support the Neo-Darwinist `blind watchmaker' theory
of the gradual step-by-step cumulative preservation by natural selection of
tiny incremental improvements in adaptability to local environments; and
therefore
3) I "take the side" (continuing to use your words) of *both*
Dawkins and Gould, that each is right about the other's theory being
wrong. That is, they are *both* wrong! The answer to this
conundrum is that Dawkins' and Gould's most fundamental assumption
of materialist-naturalism that life's complex designs does not
require a Designer, is false. Life's complex designs are exactly
that - *designs* and did in fact require a Designer.
GB>Please try to remember about multiple senses of words and the fact that
>everyone doesn't carry the same "default" meaning you do.
The "default" meanings I use are the normal one's that the
dictionaries contain. If you want to use words that have "multiple
senses" with minority or special meanings known only to you, then
please state up front in which sense you mean those words.
GB>This goes for 'conspiracy' too.
If you mean "conspiracy" in a minor, harmless sense (eg. keeping
disagreements private), then say so up front. But then your argument
that I am alleging a "conspiracy" among Darwinists loses all its force.
What you are really trying to do (whether you realise it or not) is
have me convicted of a minor, special meaning of certain words (like
"conspiracy"), and then I am held automatically guilty of the major
meaning too! This is a evolutionist trick that I have learned to be
wary of on this Reflector and that's why I insist on clarifying
words at the outset.
>SJ>...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>I think I said one thing one time and another when I actually made
>a prediction about the press. It is just an idea though. Actually,
>it would probably be more relevant to look for interest in this particular
>debate (the High Table debate, as its often called), vs. the Copenhagen
>debate. Alas, I'd guess that references to both combined in the popular
>press are probably very low.
Your claim that "the public cares even less about evolutionary
theory than it does about quantum physics", was followed
*immediately* by your "prediction" as a clarification that "there
will be more articles in the public press about physics in 1998 than
about evolutionary biology"..
Now you are back to the original comparison now between "the High
Table debate" (ie. Gould vs Dawkins) and "the Copenhagen debate"
(in quantum physics), but you now shift it from whether references to
references to *one* of these two in the "popular press" is greater
than the other, to whether "references to *both combined* in the
popular press are probably very low" (my emphasis). No doubt
"references to both combined in the popular press" will be "probably
very low", compared with Presidential affairs or the war with Iraq,
but that tells us nothing about what we were originally debating
about!
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------