>>> Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> 01/11/06 12:48 PM >>>asks me:
Two questions 1) what are the persistent explanatory problems in
evolutioanry theory such as the fossil record? and 2) why is the origin
of life relevant to evolutionary theory?
Ted responds, and notes that this will have to be his last post today! And
unless I miss my count, Pim, you're already at or over your quota for today
too, so you might need to wait a day or so to respond (if you wish to).
(1) Pim, my very strong impression is that for 150 years (longer, actually,
these debates predate Darwin), there has been serious disagreement
(including very heated debate at some times and places) among the experts
themselves, about how precisely to interpret the fossil record: continuity
vs discontinuity? gradualism vs catastrophism or quasi-catastrophism (here I
think recently of Gould and Eldredge)? full randomness (Gould) or
front-loaded order (Conway Morris)? Historically, recall names like Cuvier,
Lamarck, Lyell, Osborn, DeVries (not a fossil expert but his mutation theory
seemed to account for large jumps in the fossil record quite nicely), the
hopeful monster idea, etc. These are obviously a limted sample that could
be supplemented, but there are no lightweights in here. Scientific theories
are controversial, Pim, within science itself and not even looking outside.
I know this is not identical with what TDI means by "teach the controversy,"
but in spirit it isn't far from it. These questions are not resolved today,
they've been on the table for a long time. If Phil Johnson has doubts about
the standard answers for religious reasons, he's entitled to them. But
there are lots of secular conversations one can discuss that also raise some
of the same questions. Denton's book, one of the two that inspired Johnson
to write Darwin on Trial (the other one was Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker) is a
completely secular book--are we to say that Denton's misgivings (or those of
Conway Morris or Gould) about the standard picture are just out of bounds,
b/c they give succor to creationists?
(2) I don't know, Pim, why is the origin of life so often talked about--in
terms of Miller's experiments and the like--in biology texts? Darwin of
course begged off on this question, quite wisely, but many scienitsts don't
beg off, they believe that chemical evolution of some sort took place. And
they often believe this for a priori reasons that amount IMO to religious
convictions. Oparin was a lovely example of this very point, about which he
was quite explicit.
Ted
Received on Wed Jan 11 14:33:35 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 11 2006 - 14:33:35 EST