bch@unc.UUCP (12/23/83)
(This is a continuation of a discussion which started in net.religion, branched out into net.physics and finally got into net.news.group. In the interests of order on the net I am making an effort to move it into net.misc. My apologies to those who don't think it should be here, but tough it out -- this is net.misc.) Paul Dubuc writes: >>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. I don't believe that there is a "crisis in the evolutionary camp," but I do believe there is a large group of people who would like there to be one. If neo-Darwinism is dead (a statement hardly validated by the testimony of a few, considering the larger number who still pursue it) this does not invalidate the fundamental integrity of the Darwinian concept. >>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.) Whoa! If, as you say, there is nothing to replace it, then it can hardly be outmoded. There still is no testable theory that does a better job of accounting for the bulk of the evidence than the evolutionary model. >> Newton's theory of gravity was superceded by Einsteins 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? The quoted example of Einstein following Newton is quite appropriate. What is being said here is that the fundamental principles underlying evolutionary theory are sound; there is no confounding evidence and little contradictory. Any theory which is to replace evolutionary theory may contain radically new concepts (as did Einstein) but will not *refute* the fundamental principles or concepts of evolution. The evidence is too compelling. There are many scientific theories other than the theory of evolution which we accept even though there exist large gaps in detail. The object of continued research is to fill those gaps, and modify the theory if necessary. Do we understand gravity? Not really. Have we worked out the details of Quantum Mecha nics? No. Do we understand brain function? Partially. I guess the question of whether we should accept Darwin as being right is a matter of level. We can accept the general principles without accepting all the details. G-d forbid we should hold no doubts about evolutionary theory (or any other theory, for that matter.) That stops science on a dime. Holding doubts, however, does not mean being ready to embrace the creationist alternative. >>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. Whoa! again. Newtonian theory contained no specification about details, but simply made sense of large scale observation. It was a statement of relationships without specification at the micro level of the things which made those relationships hold. In many ways the Einsteinian theories are the same. They postulate relationships without the mechan- ical details. (Of course creationist theory is entirely without gaps in detail or *ad hoc* assumptions :-) ) >> 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. There are several important points here. First, being the best does not make it good -- clearly. Being the best does, however, give it the status of a foundation for further research. You can't throw it out if nothing else does a better job of accounting for the facts in a manner that can *be* researched. The only thing that is going to cause a "crisis in the evolu- tionary camp" (if I may be permitted some closure) is genuinely confounding evidence such as a fossilized modern man dating back 2,000,000 years (not found near a fossilized spaceship or fossilized time machine.) Hopefully, we never accept theory as fact. Facts are observations drawn within the context of developing theory which aid further in development. In this case, the evolutionary model is the best context we have for under- standing scientifically how todays ecology came to be. >>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. Lest I be read wrongly, I am not accusing Paul of being a die-hard creationist. I am, however, responding to the context of this debate which started out in net.religion and has migrated to a number of other groups. Too, the only philosophical viewpoint (my own typing of creationist doctrine) which pretends to compete with the evolutionary model is creationism in one variety or another whether it be Biblical creation, secular neo-creation, or Venusians beaming life to Earth. -- Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill (decvax!duke!unc!bch)