Reflectorites
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 11:56:43 EST, Bertvan@aol.com wrote:
>BH>In my experience, this impression is promoted by two extreme groups. One is a
>>very narrow set of neo-Darwinists that are sometimes referred to as
>>ultra-Darwinians (Eldredge) and Darwinian Fundamentalists (Gould). This group is not
>>representative of either evolutionists in general or even of neo-Darwinians. Trying to
>>promote them as such is equivalent to those evolutionists who try to paint all opponents
>>of neo-Darwinism as YEC's.
>>
>>The second group that promotes the impression you mention above are extremists
>>on the other side of the fence. Certain creationists who try to convince
>>the general public that the "orthodox" scientific view is that of the ultra-Darwinians. It is
>>very convenient for them. if the public views them as somehow oppressed by "the elite", the high
>>priests of science.
BV>I suspect - hope - you are right. However the ultra Darwinists have
>succeeded in convincing the public their interpretation of evolution is "the
>orthodox view". I can understand why scientists wouldn't want to waste their
>time arguing on these discussion boards. But why didn't some "reasonable"
>biologists speak up in support of the Kansas school board, which did nothing
>more than suggest that "random mutation and natural selection" not be taught
>as the known mechanism behind macro evolution? You once said that
>materialism is dead. Who are the biologists informing the public that
>materialism is not an essential part of biology? The only ones I've heard
>are those active in the ID movement. Is the ID movement accepted as a
>legitimate by most biologists? I believe academic freedom is pretty healthy
>at the moment. I wish a few biologists would try to convince me that is also
>true in biology.
Bertvan is right about the second part. However much theistic evolutionists
like Brian (and punctuated equilibrists like Gould and Eldredge) try to
portray the situation as though the Neo-Darwinists are the odd men out, in
fact they are fully in control of the "High Table" (to use Eldredge's term)
and are still "textbook orthodoxy" (to use Gould's term).
In my Biology course, already in the Origin of Life, the lecturer in order to
explain how non-living chemicals came together, had to give us a brief little
excursion into Darwinian natural selection. The textbook itself (as do
AFAIK *all* Biology textbooks) teaches the same Neo-Darwinism that
Brian, Gould and Eldredge try to portray as "ultra-Darwinism".
Gould himself has been dismissed by the head of the "High Table",
Maynard Smith, as: "a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly
worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized
because he is at least on our side against the creationists." (Smith J.M., The
New York Review, November 30, 1995, in Gould S.J., "Darwinian
Fundamentalism", New York Review of Books, June 12, 1997
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWfeatdisplay.cgi?1997061234F@p7).
And for all his hype, in the end Gould admits that the Neo-Darwinists are
right after all in their insistence that natural selection is the only naturalistic
mechanism which can "build structures of such eminently workable
design":
"Since the ultras are fundamentalists at heart, and since fundamentalists
generally try to stigmatize their opponents by depicting them as apostates
from the one true way, 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@p8).
So the "Certain creationists who try to convince the general public that the
"orthodox" scientific view is that of the ultra-Darwinians" are right on
target, no matter how in-"convenient" that is for the theistic evolutionists,
who try to make out that they can have `evolution' without Darwinism.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of
evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some
tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous
phenomenon known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural
selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really
severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much
more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or
chemistry." (Popper K., "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind,"
Dialectica, Vol. 32, Nos. 3-4, 1978, pp.339-355, p.344)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 16:47:07 EST