Hi Tedd, thanks again for the Margulis quotes. Especially the book at
http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/d-Contents.html
Margulis says she is a Darwinist but argues against Neo Darwinism. I've
said I was skeptical of "random mutation and natural selection as an
explanation of macro evolution". I've tried to avoid ambiguous terms such as
Neo Darwinism. If the mutations aren't random, if complexity appear fully
formed, it was not "created" by natural selection. Defective organisms don't
survive, but whether complexity is created by symbiosis, by Kauffman's "order
for free" or some other mechanism, natural selection can't create complexity,
in my opinion. Like most IDs, I accept some form of common ancestry and
acknowledge RM&NS plays a part in micro evolution. I see no reason why
scientists shouldn't dismiss any concept such as ID if they are so inclined.
It is a philosophical position, in my opinion, but one that could have an
impact upon what science chooses to investigate.
This public debate is not so much about science as public perception of
science. The most strident denunciation of "creationism" and ID has been by
people frankly acknowledging a commitment to materialism. You said:
Tedd:
>I don't think we're even close to being on the same
>page.
Bertvan:
I would have thought most of my disagreement with you was over definition of
terms, but perhaps the difference you want to emphasize is our philosophical
positions. In any case, if it is a choice of ID and Neo Darwinism, probably
the public's perception of the debate, I choose ID. Right now I'm eager to
read that book you steered me to. I might be a different person when I
finish. Thanks again.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 13:25:04 EDT