paul@phs.UUCP (Paul C. Dolber) (02/01/85)
Richard Carnes (...ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes) recently submitted an article
under the title "Various comments" which included the following:
C Now some bad news: The February *Harper's* contains another
A article attacking evolutionary theory by Tom Bethell. If this
R sort of thing is finding its way into such publications as
N *Harper's*, now is not the time for complacency among evolutionary
E biologists. If you guessed that Bethell is a journalist, not a
S biologist, you guessed right.
Apropos of which, a few comments:
1. Bethell is a journalist, not a biologist. True. Also, if you guessed
that most contributors to the discussion on this net are computerists
and not biologists, you guessed right. Bethell is, roughly speaking,
a professional skeptic; if he is not also a professional liar, that
he is not a biologist is not directly to the point.
2. The bulk of the article contains quotes and reportage of comments by
Colin Patterson (senior paleontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History), Gareth Nelson (chairman of dept. of ichthyology
at American Museum of Natural History), Norman Platnick (curator in
the AMNH's entomology dept.), and Richard Lewontin (Agassiz Professor
of Zoology at Harvard and one-time president of the Society for the
Study of Evolution). It is, by the way, quite interesting.
3. Bethell asked Lewontin about his quoted statement that "Evolution is
fact, not theory... Birds evolve from nonbirds, humans evolve from
nonhumans." Replied Lewontin: "Those statements flow simply from the
assertion that all organisms have parents. It is an empirical claim,
I think, that all living organisms have living organisms as parents.
The second empirical claim is that there was a time on earth when
there were no mammals. Now, if you allow me those two claims as
empirical, then the claim that mammals arose from non-mammals is
simply a conclusion. It's the deduction from two empirical claims.
But that's all I want to claim for it. You can't make the direct
empirical statement that mammals arose from non-mammals."
4. Bethell then goes on: "What struck me about Lewontin's argument was
how much it depended on his premise that all organisms have parents...
No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents,
or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution...
Our belief... that.. `all organisms have parents' ultimately derives
from our acceptance of the philosophy of materialism." On the other
hand, if one is not a materialist, then other interpretations are
possible. Lewontin said: "...if the birds couldn't have arisen from
muck by natural processes, then they had to arise from non-birds.
The only alternative is to say that they did arise from muck --
because God's finger went out and touched that muck." Well, some folks
do believe in a supreme being or beings (God or otherwise); it is
the contention of this article that not all zoologists are convinced
by the evidence that evolution must have occurred except insofar as,
being materialists, they do not believe in supernatural intervention.
5. Now, there's a good bit more in the article than this; I think those
who are interested in evolutionary theory ought to give it a read.
In particular, I do not think it's bad that "this sort of thing is
finding it's way into publications such as *Harper's*." Nor do I
think that any time is "time for complacency among evolutionary
biologists." To quote Bethell's own closing: "Most people want
certainty in one form (Darwin) or another (the Bible). Only evolutionary
agnostics like Patterson and Nelson and the other cladists seem
willing to live with doubt. And that, surely, is the only truly
scientific outlook." Or, to quote Patterson who was asked by another
interviewer whether or not he believed in "trees of life" (and
thus in evolution): "Well, isn't it stange that this is what it comes
to, that you have to ask me whether I believe it, as if it mattered
whether I believe it or not. Yes, I do believe it. But in saying
that, it is obvious that it is faith."
Finally, those who don't mind having their faith shaken a bit might
enjoy "The Neck of the Giraffe," by Francis Hitching ("a member of
the Royal Archeological Institute, the Prehistoric Society, and
the Society for Physical Research," if that matters to you).
Available in paperback (Mentor, 1982, $3.95). Very interesting
reading, whatever your brand of faith.
Regards, Paul Dolber @ DUMC (...duke!phs!paul).toml@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Long) (02/14/85)
~r bethell