From: Denyse O'Leary (oleary@sympatico.ca)
Date: Sun Jul 20 2003 - 09:17:38 EDT
The philosopher of biology Kim Sterelny, in a review of Dawkins's The
Blind Watchmaker, makes an interesting point:
"Dawkins is admittedly giving only scenarios: showing that it’s
conceivable that (e.g.) Wings could evolve gradually under natural
selection. Even so, one could quibble. Is it really true that natural
selection is so fine-grained that, for a protostick insect, looking 5%
like a stick is better than looking 4% like one? (Pp. 82–83). A worry
like this is especially pressing because Dawkins’ adaptive scenarios
make no mention of the costs of allegedly adaptive changes. Mimicry
might deceive potential mates as well as potential predators .... Still,
I do think this objection is something of a quibble because essentially
I agree that natural selection is the only possible explanation of
complex adaptation. So something like Dawkins’ stories have got to be
right. Sterelny, 1988, p. 424"
(From Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the
Meanings of Life (London: Penguin, 1995, pp. 250–51) [Sterelny’s review
was in the Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 1988, vol. 66, pp. 421–66.].
Essentially, Dennett is saying that you have to accept the Darwinist
(ultra-Darwinist) explanation for the evolution of a stick insect not
because it is a good explanation, but because it is the only explanation
possible.
This has got to be as big a science stopper as anything ID is charged with.
Those who accept evolution should be especially vigilant about weak
cases for natural selection, and should welcome critiques. Every case
for natural selection is not a good one.
Getting the weak cases out of the way enables public attention to focus
on the strong ones.
I have read Simon Conway Morris's The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess
Shale and the Rise of Animals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
Morris, who worked on the Shale, argues that the diverse phyla can be
interpreted as much more consistent with later forms than the late S.J.
Gould allowed. Thus, if he has problems with the "eye" hypothesis, it
would be best to hear out his objections.
Denyse
-- To see what's new in faith and science issues, go to www.designorchance.com My next book, By Design or By Chance?: The Growing Controversy Over the Origin of Life in the Universe (Castle Quay Books, Oakville) will be published Fall 2003.To order, call Castle Quay, 1-800-265-6397, fax 519-748-9835, or visit www.afcanada.com (CDN $19.95 or US$14.95).
Denyse O'Leary 14 Latimer Avenue Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5N 2L8 Tel: 416 485-2392/Fax: 416 485-9665 oleary@sympatico.ca www.denyseoleary.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 20 2003 - 09:07:55 EDT