On Mon, 11 Dec 95 13:51:08 EST you wrote:
[...]
JT>Phillip Johnson cites this recent exchange in his book _Reason in
the
>Balance_ (IVP). The research notes are especially interesting:
[...]
>Gould's review came very close to repudiating Darwinism
in favor of a concept of 'evolution' that resembles the pre-Darwinian
catastrophism of George Cuvier. I wrote to Gould after this review to
suggest that he is no more of a Darwinist than I am, and that he
refuses to acknowledge this only because he fears the metaphysical
consequences. He did not answer." (pp 227-228)
I found this Gould vs Dawkins ("empirical evolution" vs "blind
watchmaker evolution") contrast the most illuminating and significant
in the whole book. Why didn't Gould answer? Is it because he is no
longer a Darwinist but in fact is a pre-Darwinian catastrophist?
Clearly there must be something terribly wrong with Darwinism when a
paleontologist and natural historian of Gould's standing cannot
reconcile what he finds in the fossil record with the only plausible
*naturalistic* theory for how it could have happened.
But this of course is exactly what would be expected if the really
crucial steps in the history of life did not happen naturalistically.
Johnson concludes:
"Gould is faithful to the observable evidence, where a blind
watchmaker theorist is not, but the price he has to pay is that he has
only an empty term to account for the complexity. When pressed on
this point (as I have had occasion to observe), he has no alternative
but to retreat to blind watchmaker evolution for as long as it takes
to protect his home base.
The differing evolutionary theories of Gould and Dawkins can not be
resolved, because the observations that scientists have been making
are at odds with the presuppositions of the blind watchmaker thesis.
This situations places evolutionary scientists and popularizers of
evolution in a dilemma: should they support the official caricature
of the evolution-creation debate even though they must know it is
simplistic nonsense-or should they make the scientific objections
known and thereby give an opening to "irrational" (that is,
nonnaturalistic) people and organizations who want to attribute our
existence to a supernatural being called God?
What is at stake is not a mere scientific theory but a concept of
rationality, or perhaps the survival of the established naturalistic
religious philosophy."
(Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers
Grove IL, 1995, p88)
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------