From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: johnson 3 of 3
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92  11:29:34

Gould himself, in the concluding sentence of "Wonderful Life,"
proceeds directly from a Darwinist starting point to the
religious conclusion that we are morally autonomous beings who
create our own values:
 
     We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own
     paths in this most diverse and interesting of conceivable
     universes -- one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore
     offering us maximum freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our
     own chosen way.
 
     The author of all those statements castigated me for
suggesting that Darwinism is tied to naturalistic philosophy and
opposed to any meaningful theism.  David Hull, reviewing "Darwin
on Trial" for "Nature", was equally severe with me for refusing
to concede that Darwinism has finished off theistic religion for
good.  Hull emphatically proclaimed a Darwinist doctrine of God:
 
     What kind of God can one infer from the sort of phenomena
     epitomized by the species on Darwin's Galapagos Islands?
     The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance,
     contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror....
     The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent,
     almost diabolical.  He is certainly not the sort of God to
     whom anyone would be inclined to pray.
 
     So much for Darwinism's religious neutrality.  Now to the
more important question: Is the blind watchmaker thesis true?  To
put the question another way, does natural selection really have
the fantastic creative power which Darwinists claim for it?  That
seems an appropriate question, but persons like Gould, Dawkins,
and Hull insist that the very definition of "science" rules the
question out of order.  They say that science is inherently
committed to naturalistic premises, that Darwinian evolution is
the best scientific (i. e. naturalistic) theory of biological
creation that we have, and even that Darwinism possesses a virtue
called "consilience of induction" -- meaning that it explains a
lot if we assume that it is true.  One way or another, Darwinists
meet the question "Is Darwinism true?" with an answer that
amounts to an assertion of power: "Well, it is science, as we
define science, and you will have to be content with that."
     Some of us are not content with that, because we know that
the empirical evidence for the creative power of natural
selection is somewhere between weak and non-existent.  Artificial
selection of fruitflies or domestic animals produces limited
change within the species, but tells us nothing about how insects
and mammals came into existence in the first place.  In any case,
whatever artificial selection achieves is due to the employment
of human intelligence consciously pursuing a goal.  The whole
point of the blind watchmaker thesis, however, is to establish
what material processes can do in the absence of purpose and
intelligence.  That Darwinist authorities continually overlook
this crucial distinction gives us little confidence in their
objectivity.
     Examples of natural selection in action, like Kettlewell's
observation of population shifts in the peppered moth actually
illustrate cyclical variation within stable species that exhibit
no directional change.  The fossil record -- characterized by
sudden appearance and subsequent stasis -- is notoriously
reluctant to yield examples of Darwinian macroevolution.  The
therapsid reptiles and Archaeopteryx are rare exceptions to the
general absence of plausible transitional intermediates between
major groups, which is why it is important to understand that
even these Darwinist trophies are inconclusive as evidence of
macroevolution.  No wonder that prominent authorities like
Stephen Jay Gould and Lynn Margulis have yearned for a new
theory, on the ground that the evidence contradicts the
neoDarwinist claim that macroevolutionary innovation results from
the accumulation of small genetic changes by natural selection.
     The point is not whether "evolution" in some vague sense is
true.  "Evolution" has certainly occurred, but the scientific
importance of this statement is slight when evolution is defined
vaguely as "change" or modestly as "shifts in gene frequencies."
No doubt the pattern of relationships among plants and animals
invites an inference that there was some process of development
from a common source.  But how much do we know about this process
of development?  Perhaps one day scientists will be able to test
some macroevolutionary mechanism, involving changes in the rate
genes or whatever, that will explain how a four-footed mammal can
become a whale or a bat without going through impossible
intermediate steps.  The difficulties should be honestly
acknowledged, however.  What evolutionary theory needs is a
reliable creative mechanism, capable of building highly complex
structures like vision and breathing systems again and again in
diverse lines.  Speculation about how an occasional jump might
occur won't do the job.
     Readers who know the score will understand why I feel
honored that Stephen Jay Gould could find no better response to
my challenge than a vitriolic attack that evades the main points
and instead wanders through the book in search of something to
complain about.  (Compare what I wrote on page 16 of "Darwin on
Trial" with Gould's complaint about "recombination," and you will
see how hard he worked to find a nit to pick.)  I welcome
criticism on specific points; that is why I circulated
preliminary drafts to many distinguished scholars, including
Gould.  The subject in controversy, however, is my argument that
the blind watchmaker thesis is not supported by the evidence --

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: alt.atheism