Re: Marxism and Darwinism

From: Brian D Harper (bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 13 2000 - 17:46:31 EST

  • Next message: Tedd Hadley: "Re: Marxism and Darwinism"

    At 11:56 AM 3/12/00 -0500, you wrote:

    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.

    >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,

    Hello Bertvan. Thanks for your comments. Thanks also to Steve and Richard
    for their inputs. From these three responses it is obvious I didn't communicate
    my point very well. Let me try again. The "impression" that I refer to above is
    the same one that you mentioned in your post, i.e.

    Impression = "...everyone who is skeptical of neo Darwinism is pursuing na•ve,
                    impractical,  theologically impoverished (whatever that means) ideas."

    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.

    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.

    The point is that there are many highly respected researchers who are not
    neo-Darwinists, Brian Goodwin for example.

    The point is that when ID is rejected by the majority of biologists it is not because
    ".... everyone who is skeptical of neo Darwinism is pursuing na•ve, impractical, 
    theologically impoverished (whatever that means) ideas."

    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.

    Perhaps academic freedom is also healthy in biology. Perhaps ID has been rejected
    on its merits rather than on a perpetuation of the "impression". Have you considered
    this possibility?


    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 : Mon Mar 13 2000 - 14:42:19 EST