Dawkins vs. Gould

I've tried before to address the issue of Stephen Jay Gould, and have so far failed to get any feedback. EvC Forum: Has there ever been anything that made you think twice about evolution's validity?Dr. Taz made an excellent point, but it's nowhere close to that topic. I want to see if I can generate some discussion here.I respect Gould's writing, and admire him for trying to get people interested in understanding evolution. Anything that makes Darwin's contribution to science more visible and accessible is a step in the right direction. Gould (and Eldredge) should be praised for the notion of punctuated equilibrium, which was a brilliant recalibration of our expectations concerning the rate of evolutionary change.After becoming America's house evolutionist, Gould didn't keep up with scientific developments. He caricatured and ridiculed those who proposed selectionist theory at the genetic level. Despite the recent evidence that points to intergenomial conflict and selfish-gene effects, Gould never admitted his error. In his gigantic final book on evolutionary theory, Gould gives only enough space to the selfish-gene theory to label it a 'fallacy.' The one-time champion of Darwin would testify in person against creationism in Kansas schools, but also spent an inordinate amount of time and effort painting Darwin as a wrong-headed pigeon fancier whose theory of evolution by natural selection was 'effectively dead.'When Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett took Gould to task over this bizarre about-face, he branded them 'Darwinian fundamentalists.' He argued that certain adaptations were mere by-products of natural selection, and the existence of these 'spandrels' was a sign that natural selection was no longer central to evolutionary theory. In its place, he argued, we should consider the importance of contingency.Dawkins has been criticized as a nasty atheist (in contrast to Gould, who mused on religious subjects at great length) as well as a fabulist, but he has assumed the responsibility of reminding us how vital and relevant Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection continues to be. Dawkins has kept up with important research in computer models for evolutionary hypotheses, and his notion of the Digital River has brought Darwin and DNA together into the new millennium.{edited to correct typo}
------------------
Quien busca, halla[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 07-14-2003]

Dawkins struck me as a strong critical thinker whose sense of what's right drew him inadvisedly into a dispute he could not win, while Gould struck me as a horn-tooter and self-promoter. He created his own bandwagon of punctuated equilibrium, promoted it shamelessly and rode this sham horse to academic notoriety (sorry to mix my metaphors). He was also a man of great intellect and personal accomplishment, but a bit mean-minded. A bit like Newton.Don't know how well I can support this view with evidence. As I said, this is the way they struck me, not the case I built after tireless research.--Percy

Percy,I agree, almost every book I pick up disagrees with Gould on some level or another. Punctuated equilibrium seems to be actually underpinned by ZERO evidence to set it apart from the (still) reigning paradigm that the tempo of evolution is variable, but not particularly associated with cladogenesis. I wonder what sort of power was actually able to push such a shaky theory to the fore, & make it so contentious within serious scientific circles, when it should have been immediately placed on the "awaiting evidence" shelf? Clearly Gould was someone whom people listened to, & IMHO, was able to not only overmake his case, but to get people who should know better to commit themselves to something that should remain tentative.Sadly, I think Gould is going to get the criticism in death he deserved in life, & that, in time, it is what he got wrong, not what he got right that will be remembered. Not the epitaph he deserves.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-14-2003]

Any thoughts on the way Gould and Dawkins viewed the limits of evolutionary theory? Obviously Dawkins was active in applying principles of natural selection to society's idea pool with his memetic theory. There are those who have argued that attempts to extend Darwin's concepts beyond biology are invariably disastrous. In certain instances I agree, but I see a lot of relevance in conceptualizing philosophical entities as memes.Gould had a much more tolerant outlook concerning religion, perhaps motivated by the need to maintain his popularity. Dawkins, on the other hand, has always been very antagonistic to the notion of religious belief. I would assert, however, that Dawkins had much more success stating his case in 'Unweaving the Rainbow' than Gould did in 'Rock of Ages'.Is this a necessary by-product of the way each views evolutionary theory? Dawkins has based his entire career on the notion of purposeless design in nature, and extended this view to the selective struggles of people and ideas throughout history. Gould, on the other hand, continually downplayed the role of Darwin's ideas in biology. It's not surprising that he saw no place for them in analyzing human society.------------------
Quien busca, halla