Stephen Gould and the neo-Darwinians(EDIT1)
An editorial...
In a conversation, not long ago, I had the temerity to voice a few doubts about some aspects of Evolutionary theory. It occurred to me, for example, that there are a number of gaps in the fossil record, a fact readily admitted to by most members of the scientific community. I was taken somewhat aback when in response, one of the members of this particular group became very agitated indeed.
What the gentleman evidently didn't realize was that he was "preaching to the choir" so his vehemence was a little misplaced. As he ranted on about how Evolution was the "only game in town", I wasn't really inclined to disagree. Nevertheless, I found his stance a little disconcerting.
The paradigm of Evolution as an operating theory is probably valid especially given our present alternatives. My concern had to do with the intense passion of his argument which had all the earmarks of the "true believer". What brought the conversation back to me was the recent untimely passing of Stephen Jay Gould in May of 2002.
Gould was a paleontologist and unabashed popularizer of all things related to his interest in old bones. One of the themes in his writings was the idea that evolution was far from the continuous and unbroken process often suggested by some. He and his colleagues came up with what they dubbed the punctuated-equilibrium model of evolution.
Without going into too much detail, this simply meant that the process consisted of relatively rapid leaps of development followed by periods of maturation. In the realm of those who favor some form or other of evolution, there are different schools of thought. Most of them fall into a category known as neo-Darwinian which is essentially a synthesis of Darwin's original concepts married to more recent assumptions about genetics.
What makes the Gould story more interesting is the amount of heat generated by the apparent controversy surrounding the subject of evolution generally. For example, in 1990, Gould wrote a book called Wonderful Life. In it he recounts the story of the Burgess Shale, a rock formation dating from the Cambrian period located in the Canadian Rockies in southern British Columbia and of its discoverer, American geologist and palaeontologist Charles Doolittle Walcott.
It seems the well-known Oxford scholar, Richard Dawkins was far from thrilled by Gould's analyses as seen in his review of the book. Dawkins, who generally voices pretty strong opinions as can be seen here for example, becomes quite animated, discussing the Gould opus. As you can see here Dawkins isn't the only one.
This makes me a little leery. What is it about the theory of evolution that brings out so much passion? To quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks". Maybe, just maybe, there are some potential flaws that could be addressed. Personally, I would like some attention paid to the overwhelming amount of anecdotal "evidence" that exists for things like inspiration that I find hard to explain by a totally mechanistic view of the brain. I'm not suggesting of course, what Steven Pinker calls the Ghost in the Machine*. Yet perhaps there is something there worth looking at.
I don't have a problem with any theory that does a reasonably good job of explaining known factors and Lord knows, that Dawkins is quite right when he observes that "if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons." It's just that the evolution thing does have some loose ends that could do with an explanation.
I'm not sure what to do with this skepticism. Blind faith in some magical solution such as God did it does not strike me as a useful or credible alternative nor is it a testable "theory". I guess what I'd like to see is a little less polarization of the various camps. It is possible that the passionate, almost obsessive adherance to the theory as it now exists prevents us from discovering a still more likely scenario?
The scientific community is generally very competent when it comes to separating fact from fiction. I would like to believe that this same rigor is applied to evolution and yet, why do I get this vague sense of dissatisfaction. Don't misunderstand, there is excellent work being done daily to unearth this fossil or that and the painstaking effort that is put in by many researchers is truly commendable.
It's the present, almost rigid framework that bothers me, if only just a little. Is it just me or...
Additional note:
In light of current events, I feel it would be useful to add some comments to the above. The idea behind the above piece was not to discredit evolution as a very good working theory of how life probably developed in our little out-of-the-way part of the universe. Creationism or its latest manifestation, Intelligent Design, is quite rightly rejected by the scientific community for what it is, an expression of religious belief, not a scientifically verifiable theory. You can read more about this argument here in this article in The Guardian®.
My concern is, that because of the endless battle, based on gross misrepresentation, confusing the scientific method with philosophical beliefs, that science may lose its basic thrust. Could it be that out of reaction to the constant challenges to the sanity of the scientific method, the scientific community becomes so attached to the current theory, that any anomalies that may present themselves are ignored.
We're not speaking here of all the tired arguments trotted out by the Intelligent Design crowd but rather those anomalies that may exist that cry out for some kind of honest appraisal by all "seekers after truth". Let us not become so pre-occupied with the alligators**, that the real quest becomes lost in the shuffle. Honest controversy is good. Bitter rancor is not.
**The alligator reference is of course to this well-known old chestnut: "The objective of all dedicated employees is to thoroughly analyze all situations, anticipate all problems prior to their occurrence, have answers for these problems, and move swiftly to solve these problems when called upon. However, when you are up to your a__ in alligators, it is difficult to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp."
*In his book, The Blank Slate.
Other Comment Pieces
Tell a Friend
If you enjoyed this article, pass it on. Send an email to a friend.
| 
