The odd and funny theory of evolution; Darwinism as critical theory

Darwinism as critical theory

Stephen Gould claimed that best proof of evolutionary theory was that many things in the world appeared odd and funny. I'd like to say a few things about this statement.

Quotes and comments;

''The theory of natural selection would never have replaced the doctrine of divine creation if evident, admirable design pervaded all organisms. Charles Darwin understood this, and he focused on features that would be out of place in a world constructed by perfect wisdom. ... Darwin even wrote an entire book on orchids to argue that the structures evolved to ensure fertilization by insects are jerry-built of available parts used by ancestors for other purposes. Orchids are Rube Goldberg machines; a perfect engineer would certainly have come up with something better. This principle remains true today. The best illustrations of adaptation by evolution are the ones that strike our intuition as peculiar or bizarre.'' S. Gould [1]

- Is this first claim true? I don't think so; I think Gould was just bluffing. He's trying to make his argument sound powerful, by saying that without its veractiy there would be no Darwinism in our day. I don't believe this claim. Evolution theory is simply a deduction made from materialism; and so all Materialists are required to be evolutionists. There have been evolutionists as long as there have been materialists; as long as men have rebelled against their creator.

- design does pervade all organisms; but apparently prof. Gould wants 'admirable' design. (And I suppose he thinks he should be the one to define admirable :=)

- it's interesting to me that Gould relies on intuition for a belief in Macro-evolution. You notice that the 'intuition' that leads people to believe in creation is mocked and ridiculed; but when intuition leads one to a belief creation isn't true, well that's another story, that's okay.

- as almost always the fact creation happened (at least) millenia ago isn't ever admitted into the conversation. This is a disingenuous bit of rhetoric. [2]
- how many times do creationists have to say it; 'the world of today is not the world of the original creation'. It's the opposite of scholarship to pretend people are making claims they in fact are not making. Where's the intellectual integrity? It was unworthy of Gould to pretend any creationist claims the world today is the world God made. What we see today are the descendents of the original creation. (Do these people want to pretend they've never heard of the Fall? Do they want to pretend they've never heard of entropy? never heard of mutations?)

- this 'argument' demanding perfection can be seen as a subset of the Marxist (socialist) argument of saying social situation X is evil... and basing the claim on a standard of perfection. i.e. x is wrong, (bad, etc.) because it fails to measure up to my standard of perfection. So the perfectionist standard is applied in both cases.

- God isn't an engineer for one thing. Man isn't a machine and the program of portraying man in this way leads to a constant string of errors.

2. "Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution -- paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce.'' Gould [3]

- What's the scientific content of 'odd' and 'funny'? Does the fact Gould (supposedly) found something odd or funny mean it is? Based on what standard? Do these words mean anything at all. I've heard of odd numbers, but what can the concept 'odd arrangement' mean?

- it's comical that Gould would claim 'funny' and 'odd' intuitions are the 'proof' of evolutionary theory. That's supposed to be science?

- how does g. know what a 'sensible' god is? (I suppose it would be a creator very much like himself :=) This again is meaningless rhetoric. This is a feigned deism (god made in man's image).

- Gould seems to have placed great importance on his intuitions; but one wonders what validity they could have; especially if he's the product of such an odd and funny process as evolution. Wouldn't the product of such an odd and funny process be itself odd and funny? Why then should anyone take those intuitions seriously? This isn't science, it's rhetoric; and we've got Charlie himself to blame for it. (He spent twenty years trying to make 'Origins' a masterpiece of rhetoric; and he succeeded.)

Notes;
1. Stephen J. Gould, Ever Since Darwin (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), 91.
2. Many times I've liked to have said to these guys; ''Life is more than a debate fellows. Can't we speak honestly? Must everything you write be constructed for purposes of winning a debate?" It's too much to ask I guess. The search for truth has been replaced by an obsessing with winning the debate; ie. by lies, deceit, straw men arguments, ad hominem arguments, by concealment, by trivialization, etc. etc. every trick in the debater's handbook.
3. Stephen J. Gould, The Panda's Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton, 1980), pp. 20-21.
4. I'm of course defending a Biblical model of creation in this post.