Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.physics,net.religion Subject: Re: Nay to net.origins Message-ID: <1302@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 22-Dec-83 10:55:07 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.1302 Posted: Thu Dec 22 10:55:07 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Dec-83 00:42:43 EST References: <2953@utcsrgv.UUCP>, <1268@cbscc.UUCP>, <131@hou2g.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 88 [from Jim Stekas:] Com'on Duruc!! Close enough. Why must evolution theory always criticized on the basis of modern theorists finding "problems" with Darwin's views? What is the matter here? First Don Chan belittles my citation of Hitching an Macbeth because an expert researcher in the field, like Steven J. Gould, wouldn't go as far as to say that neo-Darwinism is dead. Then when I point out that that same expert has said just that, you cry "foul". What other way is there to criticize it? I don't think you can equate Darwin's views with Darwinism or, especially, neo-Darwinism. Darwin only gave birth to Darwinism. The theory has been developed quite a bit since "Origin of the Species". It is not so much Darwin as Darwinism that has the problems. In the quote I gave, Steven Gould said that the synthetic theory (aka neo-Darwinism) is effectively dead. That theory is much more that just Darwin's views. I know that rejecting neo-Darwinism is not fatal to evolutionary theory. But it does indicate that there is a crisis in the evolutionary camp since nothing better is being advanced to replace it, as far as I know. Why are scientists content to let us go on believing in out moded theories, as if they were fact? I feel pretty sure that evolution will survive the crisis (it has a lot of momentum), but why hide the problems it currently faces? (Except, of course, to prevent creationists from capitalizing on the present weakness.) Newton's theory of gravity was superceded by Einsteins theory and no one argues that all of physics was toppled like a house of cards. As far as I know, Newton's theory is still adequate for all of NASA's navigational needs. Darwin's theory is correct to the extent that man and chimpanzee shared a common ancestor. Modern scientists (as opposed to "scientists") may differ with Darwin in the details of the mutation and selection process, but not on the *fundamental* question of common ancestry. It doesn't follow that because Einstein didn't topple Newton, Darwinism will not be removed by its successor (whatever that is). Do you mean we should all accept Darwin as being right even though the details of *why* he is right or *how* it all happened are not sound? Why is it so important that we hold no doubts about neo-Darwinism? It seems to me that if scientists cannot tell us the details of how macroevolution has taken place yet say that we are to accept it has having happened anyway, there is a problem. The "details" of mutation and selection seem to me to be very important in supporting the assertion that it did occur. To the same degree that the details of a theory is unsound that theory is composed of *ad hoc* assumptions. I, for one, am tired of seeing things like Carl Sagan waving his "magic wand" before his TV audience and showing a fish become a reptile, then a bird or mammal, then and ape, then a man--as if it were all that simple! Who cares about details, right? Accept it as a fact now and the details will eventually be worked out. In so far as creation "science" is scientific, no evidence contradicts the fundamental principles of Darwin's theory. In so far as creation "science" is "scientific" it is irrelevant. Neo-Darwinism is probably the best evolutionary theory of origins we now have. But does being the best make it good? Saying that no evidence contradicts it is not the same as saying all the evidence supports it. It depends on what evidence is considered relevant and whether the weight of that evidence really compels us to accept the theory as fact. It seems you haven't noticed that I have not tried to argue that creationism is scientific. I am, however, willing to consider some of it as such. Criticizing Darwinian theories of origins does not necessarily score points for creationism (and vise-versa, I suppose). It seems, though, that anyone who is even willing to entertain creationist ideas is counted as a whole hearted supporter of everything the biblical fundamentalist creationist movement stands for and an enemy of reason and science. I'm tired of being pushed into that pigeon-hole, but I'm not walking into Darwin's either. Anyway, I'm sure you and others will be pleased that I now see that a net.origins newsgroup is probably not a good idea. I intend to give my reasons for reconsidering in a separated article in net.news.group. (As if anyone is really interested.) Paul Dubuc