From: Bertvan@aol.com <Bertvan@aol.com>
>Brian:
>>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.
I don't think this is correct. My impression is that the so-called
"ultra-Darwinians" (to use Gould and Eldredge's pejorative expression)
represent the views of the mainstream of biologists, and that it is Gould
and Eldredge who are on the fringe. I think that, thanks to the popularity
of Gould's books, his views have more prominence among the general public
than support among biologists.
Perhaps Brian could do a quick poll of professional biologists at his
university and find out if I'm right.
>>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.
>
>Hi Brian,
>
>I suspect - hope - you are right. However the ultra Darwinists have
>succeeded in convincing the public their interpretation of evolution is
"the
>orthodox view".
As I say above, I think it *is* the orthodox view, and that the label
"ultra-Darwinian" is a mendacious piece of rhetoric introduced by Gould and
Eldredge, and picked up by anti-evolutionists. Those mainstream scientists
who hold these views do not consider themselves to be "ultra-Darwinians".
>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?
Because random mutation and natural selection are the mechanisms of
evolution accepted by the vast majority of mainstream scientists.
>You once said that
>materialism is dead.
Materialism isn't dead. I consider myself a materialist, and I'm sure I'm
not alone.
>Who are the biologists informing the public that
>materialism is not an essential part of biology?
A naturalistic methodology is an essential part of science, but scientists
are not required to hold materialist beliefs. Indeed, I believe many
scientists are devout religious believers.
> The only ones I've heard
>are those active in the ID movement. Is the ID movement accepted as a
>legitimate by most biologists?
No, because the arguments of the ID movement are deeply flawed.
> 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.
I assume you believe that there's a lack of academic freedom in biology
because the theories you favour have been rejected by mainstream science. I
put it to you that the real reason they've been rejected is because they
have no merit.
Of course, if a theory seems absurd and comes from a source which is known
to be motivated by religious dogma, then most scientists won't waste their
time examining it, any more than they will examine the latest Atlantis
theory. But, because of its political significance, scientists *have*
examined the arguments for ID, and they've turned out to be bogus.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 16:57:43 EST