http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2007/05/02/darwinian-progress-gould/ A web site by Joshua Sowin that addresses culture, books, technology, ecology, religion, and other topics. Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:20:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2007/05/02/darwinian-progress-gould/comment-page-1/#comment-19901 Josh Sowin Fri, 04 May 2007 14:14:10 +0000 http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2007/05/02/darwinian-progress-gould/#comment-19901 The argument is that there is no ladder of progress with evolution. It only produces local adaptations that fit to the environment. Gould, of course, was one of the best defenders evolution of our time and co-founded punctuated equilibrium. The argument is that there is no ladder of progress with evolution. It only produces local adaptations that fit to the environment. Gould, of course, was one of the best defenders evolution of our time and co-founded punctuated equilibrium.

]]> http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2007/05/02/darwinian-progress-gould/comment-page-1/#comment-19887 Spencer Fri, 04 May 2007 05:48:44 +0000 http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2007/05/02/darwinian-progress-gould/#comment-19887 What exactly is the argument being put forward here? It cannot be that evolution is false, as it is easily proven that this statement is accurate: Squirrels could not survive on the moon. Therefore, the contention is, perhaps, that evolution cannot produce "perfect beings" whereas a theistic creator could? Whilst this is possible, that is not to say that it has happened - human beings ARE locally appropriate. Without technological assistance, we are no more able to survive on the moon than a squirrel. So the choice you are presenting here, then, is between a natural process which will not necessarily lead to a "perfect being", or a creator that has actively chosen NOT to make us perfect? What exactly is the argument being put forward here? It cannot be that evolution is false, as it is easily proven that this statement is accurate: Squirrels could not survive on the moon. Therefore, the contention is, perhaps, that evolution cannot produce “perfect beings” whereas a theistic creator could? Whilst this is possible, that is not to say that it has happened – human beings ARE locally appropriate. Without technological assistance, we are no more able to survive on the moon than a squirrel.
So the choice you are presenting here, then, is between a natural process which will not necessarily lead to a “perfect being”, or a creator that has actively chosen NOT to make us perfect?

]]>