On Sat, 21 Feb 1998 23:42:38 +1100, Derek McLarnen wrote:
[...]
>SJ>...the "severity of the debate" is a major factor, but not the only one.
DM>The "severity of the debate" is only a "testosterone and
>entertainment" issue.
If that were the case, it doesn't say much for your opinion of the
leaders of evolutionary thought like Gould, Dawkins, Dennett and
Maynard Smith!
>SJ>The *content* of the debate itself is very important.
DM>The content of the debate is the only thing that is
>important.
Agreed, but it's this very *content* that is generating all this
vitriol. It seems to me that they are frustrated beyond endurance
that they cannot find a theoretical Darwinian mechanism that
accounts for the empirical facts.
This is *precisely* what my model of Mediate Creation would expect.
>SJ>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.
DM>If we are talking about "long" in a biological sense, rather
>than a geological sense, the proponents of punctuated
>equilibria say this also. Both sides agree that, when
>evolution occurs, it is in genetically small steps, i.e.
>throughout the whole process, offspring are not markedly
>different genetically from their parents.
Agreed that they both say this, but in Gould's case it seems to be
only lip service. He and Eldredge know the fossil record does not
really support Neo-Darwinist gradualism:
"The history of most fossil species includes two features
particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They
appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they
disappear; morphological change is usually limited and
directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species
does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."...The extreme
rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the
trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches;
the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of
fossils. (Gould S.J, "The Panda's Thumb", 1980, pp150-151)
"We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports
that interpretation [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the
while really knowing that it does not." (Eldredge N., "Time
Frames', 1985, p144)
Johnson observes:
"In these frustrating circumstances, paleontologists clearly needed
to find a theory that would allow them to report the projects as
successful, but they felt constrained to operate within the
boundaries of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. What was required was a
theory that was saltationist enough to allow the paleontologist to
publish, but gradualistic enough to appease the Darwinists.
Punctuated equilibrium accomplishes this feat of statesmanship by
making the process of change inherently invisible. You can imagine
those peripheral isolates changing as much and as fast as you like,
because no one will ever see them. Gould and Eldredge have
consistently described punctuated equilibrium as a Darwinist theory,
not a saltationist repudiation of Darwinism. On the other hand, it
is easy to see how some people the impression that saltationism was
at least being hinted, if explicitly advocated. Gould and Eldredge
put two quotes by T.H. Huxley on the front of their 1977 paper,
both complaints about Darwin's refusal to allow a little "saltus" in
his theory. At about the same time, Gould independently endorsed a
qualified saltationism and predicted Goldschmidt's vindication....As
a scientific theory, "saltationist evolution" is just what Darwin
called it in the first place: rubbish. Gould and Eldredge
understand that, and so despite hints of saltationism particularly
by Gould) they have always kept open their lines of retreat to
orthodox Darwinian gradualism." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
1993, pp61-62)
>SJ>But the Gould camp say that from their specialty
>>(Palaeontology) that the fossil record does not support
>>that hypothesis.
DM>Not so. What the PE side is claiming is that, because the
>fossil record does not often show slow gradual change, other
>things are happening as well as evolution, often instead of
>evolution. Things like "habitat tracking", extinction, and
>stasis. Niles Eldridge describes the "habitat tracking"
>phenomena well.
>
>"...it has become abundantly clear that by far the most common
>response of species to environmental change is that they move -
>they change their locus of existence. In the face of environmental
>change, organisms within each and every species seek familiar
>living conditions - habitats that are "recognisable" to them based
>on the adaptations already in place. This is "habitat tracking,"
>the constant search for suitable habitat going on continually,
>generation after generation, within every species on the face of
>the earth...." (Niles Eldridge, "Reinventing Darwin", 1995,
>Wiedenfeld and Nicolson, pp. 64-65)
If "habitat-tracking" was such a major feature of PE, it seems
strange that it is only mentioned *once* in G&E's latest defence of
PE (and that admitting that other theorists don't agree with them):
"As the most important change in research practice provoked by
punctuated equilibrium, stasis has now exited from its closet of
non- definition to become a subject of quantitative investigation in
all major fossil groups-from microfossils (27,000 measured specimens
from 400 closely spaced samples spanning 8 million years in the
latter study), to molluscs, to mammals. Although punctuated
equilibrium deals directly only with stability of species through
time, the higher-level analogue of non-trending in larger clades has
also graduated from an undefined non-subject to a phenomenon worth
documenting . Moreover, because species often maintain stability
through such intense climatic change as glacial cycling stasis
must be viewed as an active phenomenon, not a passive response to
unaltered environments. Many leading evolutionary theorists, while
not accepting our preference for viewing stasis in the context of
habitat tracking or developmental constraint, have been
persuaded by punctuated equilibrium that maintenance of stability
within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem."
(Gould S.J. & Eldredge N., "Punctuated Equilibrium Comes of Age,"
Nature, 18 November 1993, Vol 366, pp223-224)
DM>The question is, how does "habitat tracking" appear to a
>paleontologist. If he is just looking in a single area, the
>movement of a population in or out will look no different to
>"sudden appearance" or "extinction" respectively. It is only
>by fossil hunting over huge geographical expanses (often not
>possible) that a paleontologist can find a pattern of
>"habitat tracking".
All this to my mind is propping up a shaky theory with auxiliary
hypotheses. My Mediate Creation model would *expect* sudden
appearance, few transitional forms and stasis, but to Neo-Darwinism
it is a major problem which must be explained away.
>SJ>This is a festering sore within Darwinism that has been
>>going on since Darwin's day, and shows no signs of ever
>>being resolved.
DM>Not a "festering sore", but a lively, entertaining
>and educational debate.
I am glad that we can both enjoy the spectacle of the world's
leading Darwinists forming into two camps and tearing each other
(and their theories) to pieces before the general public!
>SJ>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.
DM>...the practice of science isn't a zero-sum game. It isn't
>about warring and winning; its about discovering and testing.
That assumes that Darwinism is 100% "science". But as Ruse
admits, it is also a type of secular religion:
"Certainly, historically, that if you look at, say, evolutionary
theory, and of course this was brought out I think rather nicely by
the talk just before me, it's certainly been the case that evolution
has functioned, if not as a religion as such, certainly with
elements akin to a secular religion....And certainly, there's no
doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present,
for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with
elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular
religion....Certainly, if you read Thomas Henry Huxley, when he's in
full flight, there's no question but that for Huxley at some very
important level, evolution and science generally, but certainly
evolution in particular, is functioning a bit as a kind of secular
religion....And there's no question whatsoever that for Julian
Huxley, when you read <Evolution, the Modern Synthesis>, that Julian
Huxley saw evolution as a kind of progressive thing upwards. I
think Julian Huxley was certainly an atheist, but he was at the same
time a kind of neo-vitalist, and he bound this up with his science.
If you look both at his printed stuff, and if you go down to Rice
University which has got all his private papers, again and again in
the letters, it comes through very strongly that for Julian Huxley
evolution was functioning as a kind of secular religion. I think
that this -- and I'm not saying this now particularly in a critical
sense, I'm just saying this in a matter-of-fact sense -- I think
that today also, for more than one eminent evolutionist, evolution
in a way functions as a kind of secular religion. And let me just
mention my friend Edward O. Wilson....Wilson is quite categorical
about wanting to see evolution as the new myth, and all sorts of
language like this. That for him, at some level, it's functioning
as a kind of metaphysical system." (Ruse M., "Nonliteralist
Anti-Evolutionism: The Case of Phillip Johnson", 1993 Annual
Meeting of the AAAS, Symposium "The New Antievolutionism", February
13, 1993)
My analysis is that what we are now seeing between Gould and Dawkins
looks more like the worst aspects of two religions fighting it out,
than a scientific debate.
>SJ>It seems to me that both sides are right about each
>>other's position and therefore both sides are wrong about
>>their own.
DM>You've been peddling this hopeful line for a long time now,
>but the writings of Dawkins, Maynard Smith, Williams, Gould
>and Eldridge don't support it. It appears to me that they
>are both mostly right about their own positions, but lack a
>deep but necessary understanding of the other side. I have
>no major problems fitting gradualism with PE to form a
>coherent picture. Sure, I've had to read a lot, discount a
>lot of rhetoric, burn more than a few straw men, but I got
>there. And the thought-provoking discussions I've had with
>you have also helped. In one sense it was easy for me
>because I have no vested interest in the outcome,and, as a
>technologist rather than a scientist, no reputation in the
>scientific community.
Of course they don't admit it! That's the one thing both sides
cannot admit - that neither of them are right.
>SJ>Dawkins is right that naturalistic evolution can only
>>happen by Neo-Darwinian mechanisms.
DM>A bit simplistic, but essentially right.
How can a one-sentence summary of Dawkins' position be anything else
but "simplistic"? But thank you for conceding that my summary was
"essentially right"
>SJ>Gould is right that evolution did not in fact happen that
>>way.
DM>No. Gould agrees that evolution happens just this way. What
>Gould and the PE's are saying is that other natural things
>have also been happening to generate the pattern and
>diversity of life that we see today. Evolution and
>extinction are not the only ways for life to deal with
>environmental change.
No. Gould gives lip-service only to "Neo-Darwinian mechanisms". He
studied at Columbia under Dobzhansky, the co-founder of the Modern
Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, yet he wrote 20 years later as a Professor
at Harvard that the Neo-Darwinism he learned as a student was
"effectively dead":
"I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its
unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's.
Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal
description of evolution. The molecular assault came first,
followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of
speciation and by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself.
I have been reluctant to admit it-since beguiling is often
forever-but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is
accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively
dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.' (Gould S.J.,
"Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?", Paleobiology,
vol. 6(1), January 1980, p120)
The only reason Gould stays just within the pale of Neo-Darwinism
is not that he believes wholeheartedly in it, but that his "new and
general theory of evolution" never emerged:
"Gould's uncomfortable situation reminds me of the self-created
predicament of Mikhail Gorbachev in the last years of the Soviet
Empire. Gorbachev recognized that something had gone wrong with the
Communist system, but thought that the system itself could be
preserved if it was reformed. His democratic friends warned him
that the Marxist fundamentalists would inevitably turn against him,
but he was unwilling to endanger his position in the ruling elite by
following his own logic to its necessary conclusion. Gould, like
Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost to a closed
society of dogmatists. And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad
reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean
break with a dying theory." (Johnson P.E., "The Gorbachev of
Darwinism",First Things 79, January 1998, pp14-16.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9801/johnson.html)
>SJ>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!
DM>Nice try, but an even more obvious answer is that it was/is
>naturalistic processes, but not only evolution.
So now "evolution" is not even enough. We must have additional
"naturalistic processes" that are not even "evolution"! I am reminded
of Darwin's recantation in the Descent of Man of his earlier wrong
belief in the power of natural selection, and his proposing to fill the
void with a mysterious new mechanism which acted "uniformly and
energetically during a lengthened period" to produce "structures,
which...are neither beneficial nor injurious":
"...I did not formerly consider sufficiently the existence of
structures, which as far as we can at present judge, are neither
beneficial nor injurious and this I believe to be one of the
greatest oversights as yet detected in my work...It is, as I can now
see, probable that all organic beings, including man, possess
peculiarities of structure, which neither are now, nor were formerly
of any service to them, and which, therefore, are of no
physiological importance. We know not what produces the numberless
slight differences between the individuals of each species, for
reversion only carries the problem a few steps backwards, but each
peculiarity must have had its efficient cause. If these causes,
whatever they may be, were to act more uniformly and energetically
during a lengthened period (and against this no reason can be
assigned), the result would probably be not a mere slight individual
difference, but a well-marked and constant modification though one
of no physiological importance....Uniformity of character would,
however, naturally follow from the assumed uniformity of the
exciting causes...During successive periods, the same organism might
in this manner acquire successive modifications, which would be
transmitted in a nearly uniform state as long as the exciting causes
remained the same..." (Darwin C., "The Descent of Man", 1871,
Modern Library, pp441-442)
Of which Himmelfarb comments:
"Even more interesting, however, than the confession itself was what
followed it: the admission of a new factor in the variation of species,
more momentous in its implications for his theory than even sexual
selection...Falling under none of the other categories that he
recognized as responsible for evolution-natural selection, sexual
selection, the direct action of the environment, the effect of use and
disuse, and correlation of structure- the variation induced by this new
factor was of no service to the organism, either in its inception or in
its later development. And the nature of its cause was unknown.
Darwin could only assume that, whatever its cause, so long as it
continued to act "uniformly and energetically" over a long period, the
result would be the production not of "mere slight individual
differences, but well- marked constant modifications." (Darwin C.,
"Descent of Man", 1st edition, Vol. I, p153) Not only did these
variations arise "spontaneously," in the sense he had used the term in
the Origin, but-and here he went far beyond the Origin-having so
arisen, they were not subject to any selective process, natural or
sexual, since they were in no way beneficial to the organism (although
injurious variations would be eliminated by selection). And these
variations would persist so long as either the original conditions
producing them persisted or as the free crossing of individuals insured
the normal operation of heredity. The latter, he suspected, was more
important than the former: "They relate much more closely to the
constitution of the varying organism, than to the nature of the
conditions to which it has been subjected." ("Descent of Man", 1st
edition, Vol. I, p154) Darwin had come far indeed from the doctrine
of natural selection." (Himmelfarb G., "Darwin and the Darwinian
Revolution,", 1996 reprint, pp368-369)
>SJ>I do not necessarily predict "the emminent demise of
>>evolutionary theory"....I ppredict 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.
DM>If the proponents of Intelligent Design want to be heard, then
>they need to have something interesting to say. As near as I can
>tell, the defining statements of Intelligent Design's position are
>something like: God directly intervened in natural evolutionary
>processes, because such a belief fits with our theology. We
>believe that, if God intervenes in the human world, then there's no
>reason why he wouldn't intervene in the natural world as well, and
>we believe that he did. We don't know where God specifically
>intervened, or what processes were used.
Derek, I own and have read dozens of evolution books. How many
Intelligent Design books do you own, or at least have read? If you
want to state the case for Intelligent Design, how about some quotes
from ID literature that you have read?
After all, I could just as easy characterise your position as "God"
has *not* "directly intervened in natural evolutionary processes,
because such a belief fits with our" *anti-*"theology"!
As for not knowing "where God specifically intervened", ID has for
example put forward specific examples of what appears to be
irreducible complexity, that naturalistic theories have been unable
to explain, such as the blood-clotting cascade:
"Other examples of irreducible complexity abound, including aspects
of protein transport, blood clotting, closed circular DNA, electron
transport, the bacterial flagellum, telomeres, photosynthesis,
transcription regulation, and much more. Examples of irreducible
complexity can be found on virtually every page of a biochemistry
textbook. But if these things cannot be explained by Darwinian
evolution, how has the scientific community regarded these phenomena
of the past forty years? A good place to look for an answer to that
question is in the Journal of Molecular Evolution. JME is a journal
that was begun specifically to deal with the topic of how evolution
occurs on the molecular level. It has high scientific standards, and
is edited by prominent figures in the field. In a recent issue of
JME there were published eleven articles; of these, all eleven were
concerned simply with the analysis of protein or DNA sequences. None
of the papers discussed detailed models for intermediates in the
development of complex biomolecular structures. In the past ten
years JME has published 886 papers. Of these, 95 discussed the
chemical synthesis of molecules thought to be necessary for the
origin of life, 44 proposed mathematical models to improve sequence
analysis, 20 concerned the evolutionary implications of current
structures, and 719 were analyses of protein or polynucleotide
sequences. There were zero papers discussing detailed models for
intermediates in the development of complex biomolecular structures.
This is not a peculiarity of JME. No papers are to be found that
discuss detailed models for intermediates in the development of
complex biomolecular structures in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science, Nature, Science, the Journal of Molecular Biology
or, to my knowledge, any journal whatsoever." (Behe M.J.,
"Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design
Inference", C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University, Summer1994.
http://www.arn.org/arn/articles/behe924.htm)
As for "not knowing what processes were used", the point is that God
does not need to use *any* processes, but can act directly on
matter. For example, God could directly cause a series of genetic
mutations over time or instantaneously, to modify the genetic code
to produce a new feature that unaided nature could not plausibly
produce.
DM>We can't predict where or how God will intervene again.
>There are some processes in evolution that we don't
>understand naturalistically at the present time; until
>someone else demonstrates otherwise, we accept these
>processes as direct interventions of God.
It is true that ID cannot predict exactly where or how God
intervenes, but macroevolution theory is no better. It cannot
predict in advance where evolution is going to work its alleged
wonders either.
But ID would expect that if God has intervened it would be at
strategic points in the history of life, and/or where known
naturalistic processes seem to be inadequate:
"Second, the model does not appeal to or attempt to explain in light
of God and his activities to cover our ignorance, but only when good
theological or philosophical reasons are present, such as when
certain theological or philosophical reasons would cause us to
expect a discontinuity in nature where God acted via primary
causation (e.g., the origin of the universe, first life, basic
"kinds" of life)." (Moreland J.P., "The Creation Hypothesis", 1994,
pp59-60).
DM>Is this really something the scientific community should be
>taking seriously? I don't think so. Where are the laws and
>theories of ID, backed up by observation and experiment?
>What tools do the ID community use in their investigations?
I've got news for you Derek. The "scientific community" *is*
"taking" ID very "seriously" indeed. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" was
instantly reviewed/attacked by leading scientific journals, rather
than the year it took for them to review Johnson's Darwin on Trial.
Behe's book was the first anti-evolution book published by a major
secular publisher (Free Press) in 40 years.
I correspond privately with leading ID theorists who visit secular
universities and they report very encouraging interest shown by
professors (including Biology) and even Deans.
As for ID's own investigations, this is a furphy. Science is
supposed to be public knowledge largely paid for by public taxes,
and ID theorists are quite entitled to use existing scientific
findings to support their case. There is some original
investigations going on, but at this early stage it is quite
properly laying the theoretical groundwork, so it largely
philosophical.
If you want to underestimate ID and dismiss and ignore it, that's
just great!!
>SJ>I further predict that ID will continue to gain ground and
>>in the early 21st century will become a viable alternative
>>paradigm for science.
DM>I see. ID is going to gain ground while, following a totally
>uneventful entrance into the new millenium without the world
>ending, Christianity continues its inexorable slide into
>obscurity, firstly in the West, then in the East, and finally in
>Africa.
See above re underestimating ID. And you also show similar ignorance
of Christianity. While Christianity has been declining in the West
(even that's debatable if one discounts nominal Christians), it has
been growing in leaps and bounds in the Third World.
In any event, the eventual decline of Christianity was a prediction
of Christ as a sign of His imminent return:
Luke 18:8 "...when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the
earth?"; Mat 24:12 "Because of the increase of wickedness, the love
of most will grow cold..."; 2 Thess 2:3 "Let no man deceive you by
any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling
away [Gk. apostasia] first..."
>SJ>But I do not necessarily predict that ID will become dominant
>>or even more popular than materialistic-naturalism.
DM>I doubt that it will ever be even as popular as creation
"science". :-)
Again you show your lack of knowledge of ID! Johnson has claimed
that his ID movement is *already* more popular than
creation-science. When I was in the USA I stayed with a very strong
YEC-fundamentalist lady, who had heard that I was an evolutionist!
I explained to her about Phil Johnson and gave her a copy of his
"Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds", and she became very
interested. IMHO creation-science has been strong in the past
because it's the only option for creationists. Now a more
attractive creationist alternative is available, large numbers of
creationists (as well as many theistic evolutionists) will switch
allegiance to the ID movement.
A good indicator is that the ICR is now sensing that Johnson is a
threat to their patch, and starting to criticise him obliquely. See
Henry Morris' article: "Neocreationism", Impact No. 296, Institute
for Creation Research: El Cajon CA, February 1998
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-296.htm)
>SJ>Disagree. Dawkins is absolutely right. There is *no* other
>>naturalistic alternative to the `blind watchmaker'. Even Gould
>>admits this: "...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.nyb oks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997061234F >>@p3)
Does no comment signify agreement? ;-)
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------