From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Topic for Discussion?
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:03:59 GMT

Phillip Johnson (philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: I am not sure that it is possible to hold a discussion in this
: group, because the majority of participants seem to consider the
: neo-Darwinian theory to be so obviously true that doubt is not
: taken seriously.  On that basis, what is there to discuss?

	There's a difference between doubt and debate.   Doubt
drives scientists forward to investigate the uncertainties in a
theory -- such as the macroevolutionary example you provide below.
But the reason that so many on this group (and thousands of
scientists elsewhere) consider the neo-Darwinian theory to be true
is that there is no viable alternative!  Doubt *is* taken
seriously -- that's why there are so many grad students around.

: large over geological time).  If so, it is also reasonable to
: conclude that the mechanism of macroevolution is an unsolved
: mystery.  This does not necessarily imply supernatural creation,
: because it is possible that science will discover a naturalistic
: mechanism at some time in the future.  It is also not "anti-
: science."  Indeed, students with inquiring minds may be more
: attracted to the field of evolutionary biology if they are told
: that they have an opportunity to try to solve a big mystery,
: rather than merely to fill in the details of the neo-Darwinian
: picture.  Of course, there can be no guarantee that they will
: succeed.  

	This paragraph is one of the best things you've written
so far.  Because it finally acknowledges the frawework of progress
toward refining a scientific theory.   As an example, Einstein's
theory of relativity made some big (and testable) claims, such as
gravity's ability to bend light.  Only after the experiment (with
solar occultations) proved him correct did he gain a stronger level
of acceptance.
	What is unfair is the tenet that "doubt = discredit (or
disproof)".   Even if a macroevolutionary mechanism is never found,
that does not mean neo-Darwinian theory is wrong.  However, it's fair
to point out that the longer an uncertainty persists in science, more
firepower and money is brought to bear on the issue.  Current example:
the Super-Conducting SuperCollider and the Higgs boson.
	My own spin on the "macroevolution = cumulative microevolution"
question:  the time element is missing.  I think, stressing the "I", that
rapid, cumulative microevolution, esp. in those apparently chaotic, turbulent
geologic period transitions, does equal macroevolution.  The process
occurs too quickly to get a geologic "snapshot" of it in progress, unless,
with Archaeopteryx as the ultimate example, we get lucky.

: My impression is that many participants in this group think that
: the position stated in the preceding paragraph is unreasonable,
: and even in some sense reprehensible.  Is that correct?  If so,
: why?

	I hope I just showed you that I, for one, consider it to be
the best grasp you've shown on the topic so far.



: -- 
: Phillip E. Johnson
:   School of Law, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720
: