[Phys-L] Re: prompted by intelligent design

[hhaskell at MINDSPRING.COM (Hugh Haskell)]

At 15:45  -0400 10/4/05, Justin Parke wrote:
> I was referring to the fact that the theory of punctuated
> equilibrium, while not enjoying acceptance, was not criticized for
> the sole reason that at least the proponent of the theory is
> "against the creationists".  If the theory is correct, who cares
> about the creationists, and if it is not, who cares about the
> creationists?  What is the point of science if not to produce models
> that are supported by evidence?
I had a rather lengthy conversation with Niles Eldredge (co-author of
the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis with Gould), a few years back
(as it happened, just a couple of weeks before Gould's death). He is,
as most of you know, an outspoken critic of ID and Creationism,
having published several books on the subject. We talked some about
the battle between Eldredge and Gould on one side and Richard Dawkins
on the other, regarding the PE idea, and it was Eldredge's position
that the division between the pro's and the con's on PE is mostly a
philosophical one. Everybody agrees on the evidence; the issue is how
it is to be interpreted. Eldredge thought that PE was the best way to
explain the so-called "gaps" in the fossil record. If most evolution
occurred during relatively short intervals over the course of the
total elapsed time, then, statistically, one would not expect to find
many "transitional forms" and it was Eldredge's view that he was
surprised that there were so many of them, not that there were too
few.

As a non-specialist in that arena, I thought his arguments
compelling, and I still think so. I have not heard any opponent of
the idea of PE give anywhere near as cogent arguments, including
Dawkins.

Dawkins and Gould also had a strong disagreement on whether evolution
involved "progress" or was just a record of what happened, come good
or some bad, with Gould taking the latter view. I think most of the
disagreement between the two was over this idea, rather than over PE,
and I suspect that that might be a bigger divide among
paleontologists in general that the PE/not PE issue.

My guess is that not very many paleontologists are of the opinion
that they shouldn't disagree with Gould because he was "on their
side" on the creationism issue. Most of them, whether they agree with
it or not, just don't see it as a central issue of evolution,
certainly not at the level of the progress/not progress issue, which
has gotten rather heated at times (much of Gould's later work focused
a good bit of its energy on that issue, which he felt passionately
about).

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Never ask someone what computer they use. If they use a Mac, they
will tell you. If not, why embarrass them?
                        --Douglas Adams
******************************************************