My discussion with Larry Moran over the last few days ranged over several topics, including the current debate among neutral theory advocates like Dr. Moran, and those who believe natural selection remains the primary driving force. The discussion put me in mind of a post I put up several months ago in which I said:
Is there any “core” proposition on which all proponents of modern evolutionary theory agree. By “core” proposition, I do not mean basic facts of biology that pretty much everyone from YECs to Richard Dawkins agrees are true. I mean a proposition upon which the theory stands or falls, and, as I said above, sets it apart from other theories and accounts for its unique purported explanatory power
I have in mind a proposition that would answer David Berlinski’s famous question:
“I disagree [with Paul R. Gross’ assertion] that Darwin’s theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.” Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
Indeed. What does modern evolutionary theory offer in comparison? How can the theory ever hope to be as “solid as any explanation in science” when its proponents cannot seem to agree on a single tenet, the falsification of which would, in Berlinski’s words, shatter the theory?
My discussion with Dr. Moran reminded me that advocates of modern evolutionary theory have yet to come close to answering Berlinski’s question. Yet, I bet Dr. Moran would insist that materialist evolutionary theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.”
But I won’t presume to put words in his mouth. What say you Dr. Moran? Is Paul Gross correct or is David Berlinski correct?