Re: 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS

david ford wrote:

> If "evolution" equals "blindwatchmaking via the neo-Darwinian mechanism of
> blindwatchmaking," then Eldredge's expert remarks, as well as similar
> remarks by paleontologists Gould and Eldredge in the peer-reviewed
> scientific literature, constitute evidence against "evolution."

        The most serious problem with the BW "objection" is that if a blind watchmaker 
did not 
have to start over every time but could save the parts that worked and keep them 
assembled 
he would only have to try adding new parts. The objection falsely assumes everything 
has 
to be right the first time. Rather it is like the game of hangman. When you get a 
letter 
right you keep it. Life, like near-watches, can partially function before they run 
accurately, have hands, that turn in the right direction, and the nicety of a case. 
This 
is because the BW idea assumes an exact form for the finished product whereas 
evolution 
has no goal in mind. One could as easily find fault with evolution because it has 
failed 
to produce unicorns.

> Since the proposed Darwinian mechanism of blindwatchmaking has had so many
> problems dealing with reality ever since it was proposed, some
> materialists have distinguished
> a) the "fact" that biology came about through blindwatchmaking
> from
> b) the "theory" that the Darwinian mechanism was _how_ biology developed
> through the years.

        The fact of evolution is that the forms of life change over time and that the 
greater the 
time difference the greater the differences in form. A theory to explain that is 
something 
else.

        Additionally most religious types embraced Darwin's first work as the best 
explanation. 
The love affair ended with the second book, the Descent of Man. So you should deal 
with 
this in its historical context.

-- 
I detest politics not for what it is but for what
it pretends it is not.
        -- The Iron Webmaster, 2943