At 10:15 PM 3/13/00 +0000, Richard wrote:
>From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>[snip]
> >My point was not whether ultra-Darwinism is itself a typical view among
>evolutionary
> >biologists but whether neo-Darwinists or evolutionary biologists or
>biologists in general
> >promote the "impression" above.
>
>OK. I understand that the issue of whether "ultra-Darwinism" is a typical
>view was not your point. Nevertheless, in the course of making your point,
>you did state that this group is "a very narrow set of neo-Darwinists", and
>I wanted to draw attention to the fact that this is wrong.
Ah, I see the source of my boo boo now, thanks. What I really should have said
was a narrow set of "ultra-Darwinians" since clearly the aforementioned
"impression"
is not one promoted by all or even (hopefully) a majority of the
"ultra-Darwinians".
In retrospect, it would have been much clearer to just say that the
"impression"
is promoted by a narrow set of neo-Darwinists. This was basically my point.
I don't
recall what I was thinking at the time, but I imagine that the individuals
I happened
to think of all happened to be "ultra-Darwinians".
> >Richard suggested I conduct a poll. Within the context of what I wrote, the
>poll
> >should ask:
> >
> >Do you believe that everyone who is skeptical of neo Darwinism is pursuing
>na•ve,
> >impractical, theologically impoverished (whatever that means) ideas.
>
>Well, since I was referring to a different point from you, that was not the
>poll question I had in mind. I wanted to know whether most professional
>biologists in your university would agree that those who are characterized
>by Gould and Eldredge as "ultra-Darwinians" are "a very narrow set of
>neo-Darwinists".
Yes, I realized this :), sorry for not being clearer. One reason for my writing
the poll question as above was to make it clear we were talking of different
things. My fault for writing so obscurely :).
>Also, I think it's worth pointing out that, when Tom Pearson used the
>expression "naive, impractical (or theologically impoverished) features", he
>was referring to creationism, not to all those who are skeptical of
>neo-Darwinism. This became distorted by Bertvan into the version that you
>are now including in your proposed poll question. In other words, no-one
>here actually expressed such a view.
Well, I hadn't seen the original quote by Tom, but this just reaffirms my
point,
which was that few biologists hold this view. I was reacting to what I see as a
common argument in the evolution/creation debate. The argument goes like
this: "Biologists have not considered ID on its own merits, they have just
rejected
it out of hand, like they reject anything that is contrary to neo-Darwinism"
Thanks for your comments.
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 14 2000 - 16:35:48 EST