M.J.Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DaveL,
>
> Thank you for answering my question.
>
> You write, "The impression you are under is due to
> certain religious groups who are attempting to
> undermine the very foundations of science."
>
> No it isn't. It it true, and dismayingly so, that
> I.D. has been high-jacked, so to speak, by
> Christian Fundamentalists, but these people
> certainly have no influence on my considering as
> plausible the non-religious view that the
> mechanics of Evolution involves to some degree an
> intelligent force.
> I am an atheist of many years standing but for as
> long as I can remember I have felt that Evolution
> is not entirely mechanical. Okay, I grant you that
> this is not a valid scientific reason to question
> Darwinism, but just stop and think of how many
> scientific theories were born out of or changed by
> a person's gut-feeling, hunch, a vague sense that
> the explanation of the day wasn't quite right.
> Not, I hasten to add, that I'm implying I am the
> next Galileo, Newton, or Darwin in the making.
>
> I have not made a study of evolution but I have
> over the years read a few books and articles on
> the subject; and I think I have learned enough to
> know that all is not as rosy in the world of
> Dawinism as its more fervent supporters would have
> us believe. My understanding is that there are
> flaws in Darwinism. Of course, this does not mean
> that Darwinism is entirely wrong, only that it is
> a theory that cannot - as yet - explain everything
> about how evolution works. So, as there are (okay,
> allegedly) flaws in Darwinism


It would be useful to define our terms, as I pointed out elsewhere we really need to talk about neo-Darwinism (the "modern synthesis"). the following is from talk origins.org

" During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;

"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

This description would be incomprehensible to Darwin since he was unaware of genes and genetic drift. The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:
1 It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
2 It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
3 It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.
In other words, the Modern Synthesis is a theory about how evolution works at the level of genes, phenotypes, and populations whereas Darwinism was concerned mainly with organisms, speciation and individuals. This is a major paradigm shift and those who fail to appreciate it find themselves out of step with the thinking of evolutionary biologists. Many instances of such confusion can be seen here in the newsgroups, in the popular press, and in the writings of anti-evolutionists.

The major controversy among evolutionists today concerns the validity of point #3 (above). The are many who believe that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual change but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation. This model is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases. The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism. To a large extent the debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals. No new mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model.

Some scientists continue to refer to modern thought in evolution as Neo-Darwinian. In some cases these scientists do not understand that the field has changed but in other cases they are referring to what I have called the Modern Synthesis, only they have retained the old name."
*****
[BOM]

Of course, there are disputes about aspects and parts of evolution are "frontier science" but 1)why would you expect neo-Darwinism to explain, in detail, every possible question? Why would this failure be consiered a "flaw". By this logic thermodynamics would be considered "flawed" since scientists are still researching and finding new things about thermodynamics. and 2)the broad elements in the definition above are are "textbook science."
BTW compare the amount of precise detail you can get in noe-Darwinian papers to the hand waving done by Behe et al. :-).
Bernard








> I see nothing wrong in looking at other possible
> scientific and non-scientific (i.e.
> un-falsifiable) explanations. Naturally, as an
> atheist I instinctively exclude explanations of a
> Religious nature.
>
> You continue, "This is very dangerous, as the
> foundations of science are the foundations of
> truth and reality."
>
> One of the most unfortunate things about us humans
> is that almost everything we say and do is
> potentially dangerous. It was ever thus, I fear.
> I do not share your vision of Science as "the
> foundations of truth and reality." True, it is
> extraordinarily useful and indeed life for many of
> us would be poorer without it. But, in this
> context, it is just another way of seeing the
> world around us. There can be as much wonder in
> imagining the sound of thunder being caused by the
> Gods moving their furniture about as there is in
> describing it in physical terms of colliding
> clouds, air pressure changes, and so on.
>
> MJT