Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Non-religiously motivated dissent from Darwinism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A colleague sent me this. I’d like to ask contributors to this thread to list other books published before the advent of the ID movement that, like this, were (1) non-religiously motivated and (2) regarded conventional evolutionary theory as “a fairy tale for adults.”

“A Biologist’s View,” Jean Rostand, Wm. Heinemann Ltd., 1956.

French biologist Jean Rostand–“one of the leading European biologists,”
according to the jacket of this 1956 book–hardly fits the popular stereotype
of an intelligent design activist. He writes, for example: “I am quite
incapable of taking seriously a ‘revelation’ supposedly made to our ancestors
in the remote past,” and “I believe firmly in the evolution of organic nature,”
and again “the only kind of truth I believe in is one discovered slowly and
painfully.” Yet Rostand rejects Darwinism (calling it “a fairy tale for
adults” in another reference), and writes, “a theory of evolution…must
account…for the harmony which is found in living structures. This harmony
is admittedly not perfect but it is quite sufficient to suggest the idea
of design or intention–of purpose, in fact.” Further, he says, “though
we may know nothing of the actual variations which have made evolution,
this need not stop us from making a mental picture of them…they must be
supposed to be creative and not random.” He discusses the possibility that
this “creativeness” may originate from within the living organisms
themselves, and never considers the possibility of a external designer.

Because of his philosophical leanings, Rostand might (or might not)
object to the inclusion of his book in this list, but in fact he
illustrates nicely that the conclusion that the development of life
suggests design does not flow from religious preconceptions, but from the
evidence itself.

Comments
The German zoologist Theodor Eimer (a proponent of orthogenesis) published an attack on natural selection titled "On Orthogenesis: And the Impotence of Natural Selection in Species Formation" (1898). The book can be found online here; http://archive.org/stream/onorthogenesisa00eimegoog#page/n2/mode/2up He also was a Lamarckian and wrote the book "Organic Evolution as the Result of the inheritance of Acquired Characters according to the Laws of Organic Growth" (1888). It is a shame such works have been forgotten, they have some very useful evidence against Darwinism.TheisticEvolutionist
October 17, 2013
October
10
Oct
17
17
2013
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Another early forgotten critic of neo-Darwinism was the English botanist John Christopher Willis author of the book "The Course of Evolution by Differentiation Or Divergent Mutation Rather Than by Selection" (1940). His also proposed the controversial anti-Darwinian "Age and Area hypothesis". The book can be found online here; http://archive.org/stream/courseofevolutio00will#page/n5/mode/2up Make's a very compelling argument for the inadequacy of natural selection. Willis was a saltationist. His views similar in some ways to Richard Goldschmidt on mutationism.TheisticEvolutionist
October 17, 2013
October
10
Oct
17
17
2013
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
The Collapse of Darwinism: Or The Rise of a Realist Theory of Life by Graeme D. Snooks
In this provocative work, noted social and economic theorist Graeme D. Snooks exposes fatal flaws in the foundations of the Darwinian theory of evolution, which he deems an "artificial algorithm," as well as the neo-Darwinian synthesis adopted by many social scientists. Utilizing the historical method, Snooks develops a remarkable replacement theory of evolution, which he calls the "dynamic-strategy" theory. While the neo-Darwinian position places too great an emphasis on genetic change—giving rise to untenable but popular concepts such as the "selfish gene"—and fails to explain the fluctuating fortunes of life's most successful species (mankind), Snooks' framework starts by systematically observing the broad patterns of life and human society. The resultant realist theory of life posits life as a strategic pursuit (rather than a game of chance) in which organisms adopt dynamic strategies (only one of which is genetic change) to survive and prosper. Organisms' and species' progress is achieved through "strategic selection"—a concept that displaces the "divine selection" of creationists and the "natural selection" of Darwinists. This new theory reveals the organism as empowered, rather than as the plaything of gods, genes, or blind chance; and it provides a new basis for humanism.
TheisticEvolutionist
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
Modern Materialism and Emergent Evolution by William McDougall (1929)
This book is a direct attack on the problem of purpose. It exhibits the failure of all attempts to explain human action mechanistically) the essence of modern materialism), establishes purposive action as a type of event radically different from all mechanistic events, and justifies the belief in teleological causation without where there can be neither religion nor morals.
McDougall a Lamarckian supported a teleological view of evolution in opposition to neo-Darwinism. In the book he claimed the mechanism of acquired characters was immaterial. This reminds me of the morphic resonance of Rupert Sheldrake who cited the work of Mcdougall in his book A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance.TheisticEvolutionist
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
An interesting old book I obtained from a second-hand bookstore recently was "Mind and Its Mechanism: With Special Reference to Ideo-Motor Action, Hypnosis, Habit and Instinct and the Lamarckian Theory of Evolution" (1927) by two psychologists Paul Bousfield and W. R. Bousfield. The books last chapter entitled "Evolution" supported a strict neo-Lamarckian view of evolution. The authors cited the work of William McDougall on rats and the experiments of Paul Kammerer to support the view that acquired characteristics are inherited. Unfortunately both the Kammerer and McDougall experiments are known to have contained serious flaws. There is an overview on Wikipedia of many other "neo-Lamarckian" experiments in the early 1900s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism#Neo-Lamarckism The work of the British marine biologist Joseph Thomas Cunningham is mentioned. Cunningham was a devout Lamarckian who published a number of anti-Darwinian books.TheisticEvolutionist
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
In his book "Evolution in the Antipodes: Charles Darwin and Australia" Tom Frame wrote;
There has been a steady stream of articles and books questioning the claims of Darwinian theory on non-religious grounds. The more recent and well known include Francis Hitching's The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), Beyond Natural Selection (1991) by Robert Wesson, Richard Milton's The of Life (1992), How the Leopard Changed its Spots (1994) by Brian Goodwin and Fred Hoyle's Mathematics of Evolution (1999).
The only one of those I have not read is the one by Fred Hoyle, seems it is out-of-print and hard to locate.TheisticEvolutionist
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT
Another interesting anti-Darwinian book "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism" (1982) by Brian Leith. If I get the time I may summarize some of the evidence he documented. Similar to Soren Lovtrup's books this one was a full blown criticism of Neo-Darwinism.TheisticEvolutionist
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT
A mostly forgotten book "The Origins of Life: Evolution as Creation" by Hoimar von Ditfurth.
While asserting the validity of the theory of evolution, this book points to scientific research--on sub-atomic particles and at the fringes of the cosmos--that suggests that there is a dimension of spirit beyond matter.
This was a theistic evolution book that was compared to the work of Asa Gray. The book came out before the modern ID movement. Generally a poor book, if I can remember correctly only near the end of the book did the author argue that evolution *may* have been programmed during a supernatural first cause that started the Big Bang. Another interesting forgotten book that came out at a similar time to some of the authors in the modern ID movement in America in the 80s was the book "Origins of Life" by Jim Brooks. I am not quite sure if Brooks was a theistic evolutionist or an old earth creationist but his book was a debunking of various naturalistic theories of the origin of life, he did reject a strict literal reading of the Bible but he was a Christian. The book came out a year after "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories" by Walter L. Bradley and Charles B. Thaxton. I would recommend it to any ID theorist.TheisticEvolutionist
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
Beyond Natural Selection by Robert Wesson
In this broad and highly readable inquiry, Robert Wesson proposes an approach to evolution that is more in harmony with modern science than Darwinism or neoDarwinism. He emphasizes the importance for evolution of inner direction and the self-organizing capacities of life, a view that is better able to account for the chaotic nature of the evolutionary process and the inherent propensity of complex dynamic systems to grow more complex with time. Many examples of plants and animals support this idea, and Wesson includes both carefully documented scientific facts and intriguing anecdotes about the odd aberrations in natural selection.
An interesting book that I have read a few times. It received terrible reviews in science journals but both Lynn Margulis and Elisabet Sahtouris said positive things about the book. It's best strength is the amount of biological anomalies it mentions that natural selection fails to explain.TheisticEvolutionist
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT
The paper Dissecting Darwinism by Joseph A. Kuhn was discussed on this website a few years ago but what was overlooked what Kuhn's comments on John Hunter. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246854/
John Hunter was also a brilliant biologist and naturalist, having dissected and stored thousands of animals and plants. His considerable samples represented the entire initial display of the Royal College of Surgeons Museum. In two lengthy volumes, entitled Essays and Observations on Natural History, Anatomy, Physiology, Psychology, and Geology, he identified the remarkable similarity of muscles and organs between various species. John Hunter proposed a gradual formation of species through mutation 70 years before Charles Darwin published his observations in On the Origin of the Species. Therefore, history reveals that surgeons are uniquely capable of gathering information, making observations, and reaching conclusions about scientific discoveries.
As discussed, John Hunter developed a theory of evolution before Darwin. But what is not widely known is that Darwin plagiarized many of his ideas from Hunter. This is discussed in detail in the book "The Illustrious Hunter and the Darwins" by science historian WJ Dempster.TheisticEvolutionist
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
Eugene Koonin and his book has been mentioned here at UD in some other threads but his papers have not been mentioned. In his book The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (2011) Koonin wrote;
The exclusive focus of Modern Synthesis on natural selection acting on random genetic variation has been replaced with a plurality of complementary, fundamental evolutionary processes and patterns. In the new evolutionary biology, natural selection is but one of the processes that shape evolving genomes—and, apparently, not the quantitatively dominant one. To a large extent, neutral processes such as genetic drift and draft define evolution.
Here are two of his papers; Eugene Koonin, The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475 and Eugene Koonin, Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics, Nucleic Acids Research, 37(4), 2009, pp. 1011-1034.
In the post-genomic era, all the major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.
The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the tree of life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the modern synthesis inherited from Darwin, namely gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.
Equally outdated is the (neo-) Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution; clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection.
Links to his papers; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/ It would be incorrect to all Koonin a non-Darwinian, he describes himself as a Darwinist, yet is critical of neo-Darwinism which he believes has crumbled. He calls for a new evolutionary synthesis that invokes Darwinian, Lamarckian and saltational mechanisms and processes.TheisticEvolutionist
October 2, 2013
October
10
Oct
2
02
2013
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
Neophenogenesis: A developmental theory of phenotypic evolution by Timothy D. Johnston and Gilbert Gottlieb
An important task for evolutionary biology is to explain how phenotypes change over evolutionary time. Neo-Darwinian theory explains phenotypic change as the outcome of genetic change brought about by natural selection. In the neo-Darwinian account, genetic change is primary; phenotypic change is a secondary outcome that is often given no explicit consideration at all. In this article, we introduce the concept of neophenogenesis: a persistent, transgenerational change in phenotypes over evolutionary time. A theory of neophenogenesis must encompass all sources of such phenotypic change, not just genetic ones. Both genetic and extra-genetic contributions to neophenogenesis have their effect through the mechanisms of development, and developmental considerations, particularly a rejection of the commonly held distinction between inherited and acquired traits, occupy a central place in neophenogenetic theory. New phenotypes arise because of a change in the patterns of organism-environment interaction that produce development in members of a population. So long as these new patterns of developmental interaction persist, the new phenotype(s) will also persist. Although the developmental mechanisms that produce the novel phenotype may change, as in the process known as “genetic assimilation”, such changes are not necessary in order for neophenogenesis to occur, because neophenogenetic theory is a theory of phenotypic, not genetic, change.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519305802607 It appears the Journal of Theoretical Biology published many non-Darwinian papers in the 80s and early 90s. Also see the papers I listed above from Mae Wan-Ho which were also published in the same journal.TheisticEvolutionist
October 2, 2013
October
10
Oct
2
02
2013
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
Not many people know this one. The philosopher Richard Spilsbury published a book called "Providence Lost : A Critique of Darwinism" in 1974 and some of the arguments are similar to the book by Thomas Nagel in the book "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" published in 2012... of course people about Nagel but Spilsbury is virtually unknown!TheisticEvolutionist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
These books may be of interest to readers here at UD. Both take influences from Goethe and non-Darwinian evolution. Development Dynamics in Humans and Other Primates: Discovering Evolutionary Principles through Comparative Morphology by Jos Verhulst
In this book, Jos Verhulst expands on the evolutionary theory first proposed by Louis Bolk. The theory is based on the premise that aspects of the individual creatures' development - from juveniles to adults - are also at work in animal evolution as a whole. Verhulst shows that, unlike other primates - who start out with a rather humanlike form but become, say, apes - humans retain their original fetal form. Standing Darwinism on its head, he argues that humans have not descended from apes, but rather that apes have evolved by diverging from a humanlike prototype. He also proposes that the gradually emerging human prototype is the driving force, and central trunk, of the evolutionary tree -the wellspring from which the animal world has sprung.
Thinking Beyond Darwin: The Idea of the Type As a Key to Vertebrate Evolution by Ernst-Michael Kranich
Focusing on a central problem of the evolution of vertebrae, the author questions whether there is a principle underlying the disparate animal forms. He shows that there is. Following Goethe, he points out that a key to understanding the great variety of vertebrates lies in the plasticity of what he calls the "vertebrate type". He goes on to show how successive classes of vertebrates can be seen as increasingly complete manifestations of the type. Thus the driving forces of evolution are found in the inner lawfulness of living organisms, each of which is itself a manifestation of the type in action.
And here is a description from a review of the book;
If you think that only those with religious motivations find current evolutionary theories inadequate, this book is for you. These German scholars demonstrate that gradual accumulations of mutations does not add up to biological novelty. The abrupt appearance of fossils in the fossil record, as noted by the German paleontologist Otto Schindewolf decades ago, is also recounted. The work of Michael Denton is also mentioned.
Which totally fits the description of this thread! It is a shame such books have been ignored and mostly forgotten about.TheisticEvolutionist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT
Evolution in Revolution: A Paradigm shift in our understanding of life and biological evolution by František Baluška http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3204118/
Biological evolution represents one of the most successful, but also controversial scientific concepts. Ever since Charles Darwin formulated his version of evolution via natural selection, biological sciences experienced explosive development and progress. First of all, although Darwin could not explain how traits of organisms, selected via natural selection, are inherited and passed down along generations; his theory stimulated research in this respect and resulted in the establishment of genetics and still later in the discovery of DNA and genome sequencing some hundred years after his evolutionary theory. Nevertheless, there are several weaknesses in classical Darwinian as well as Neodarwinian gene-centric views of biological evolution. The most serious drawback is its narrow focus: the modern evolutionary synthesis, as formulated in the 20th Century, is based on the concept of gene and on the mathematical/statistical analysis of populations. While Neodarwinism is still generally considered a valid theory of biological evolution, its narrow focus and incompatibility with several new findings and discoveries calls for its update and/ or transformation. Either it will be replaced with an updated version or, if not flexible enough, it will be replaced by a new theory. In his book “Evolution – A New View from the 21st Century,”1 James A. Shapiro discusses these problems as well as newly emerging results which are changing our understanding of biological evolution. This new book joins a row of several other recent books highlighting the same issues.
TheisticEvolutionist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
Interesting paper on self-organization challenging Darwinism. The uniqueness of biological self-organization: challenging the Darwinian paradigm by J. B. Edelmann and M. J. Denton http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/philbio/readings/edelmann.biologicalselforganization.2007.pdf
Here we discuss the challenge posed by self-organization to the Darwinian conception of evolution. As we point out, natural selection can only be the major creative agency in evolution if all or most of the adaptive complexity manifest in living organisms is built up over many generations by the cumulative selection of naturally occurring small, random mutations or variants, i.e., additive, incremental steps over an extended period of time. Biological self-organization witnessed classically in the folding of a protein, or in the formation of the cell membrane—is a fundamentally different means of generating complexity. We agree that self-organizing systems may be fine-tuned by selection and that self-organization may be therefore considered a complementary mechanism to natural selection as a causal agency in the evolution of life. But we argue that if self-organization proves to be a common mechanism for the generation of adaptive order from the molecular to the organismic level, then this will greatly undermine the Darwinian claim that natural selection is the major creative agency in evolution.
TheisticEvolutionist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
Mae Wan Ho and Peter Saunders in their paper "Beyond neo-Darwinism an epigenetic approach to evolution". http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519379901917
We argue that the basic neo-Darwinian framework the natural selection of random mutations is insufficient to account for evolution. The role of natural selection is itself limited: it cannot adequately explain the diversity of populations or of species; nor can it account for the origin of new species or for major evolutionary change. The evidence suggests on the one hand that most genetic changes are irrelevant to evolution; and on the other, that a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance.
TheisticEvolutionist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
Rose MR, Oakley TH "The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis" Biology Direct 2007, 2:30. http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/30
The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century.
In the above paper see the section "Dead parts of the Modern Synthesis".TheisticEvolutionist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
Another paper that has already been mentioned on this website "The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution after the Modern Synthesis" by David J. Depew.
We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. We go on to discuss two conceptual issues: whether natural selection can be the “creative factor” in a new, more general framework for evolutionary theorizing; and whether in such a framework organisms must be conceived as self-organizing systems embedded in self-organizing ecological systems.
David J. Depew. "The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution after the Modern Synthesis" Biological Theory 6.1 (2011): 89-102.TheisticEvolutionist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
An overlooked paper I found; Neo-rationalism versus neo-Darwinism: Integrating development and evolution by Kelly C. Smith.
An increasing number of biologists are expressing discontent with the prevailing theory of neo-Darwinism. In particular, the tendency of neo-Darwinians to adopt genetic determinism and atomistic notions of both genes and organisms is seen as grossly unfair to the body of developmental theory. One faction of dissenteers, the Process Structuralists, take their inspiration from the rational morphologists who preceded Darwin. These “neo-rationalists” argue that a mature biology must possess universal laws and that these “generative laws” should be sought within organismal development. Such a rational biology will only be possible once the neo-Darwinian paradigm, with its reliance on inherently stochastic processes, is overthrown. To facilitate this revolution, process structuralism launches a broad attack on the theoritical adequacy of its opponent. It is charged that neo-Darwinism is untestable and therefore its hypotheses are nothing more than adaptive stories. Further, the lamentable tendencies toward genetic determinism and atomism by modern biologists is seen as the inescapable consequences of adopting the neo-Darwinian outlook. I allow that neo-Darwinism is untestable but argue that this does not pose a major difficulty for the theory. Further, it is not clear to what extent genetic determinism and atomism result from sloppy methodology as opposed to fundamental theoritical commitments. But the process structuralist critique does reveal some deep-seated problems with orthodox evolutionary theory and some of its suggestions may be employed to good effect.
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF00130061.pdfTheisticEvolutionist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
Recent book by Professor of biology Masatoshi Nei "Mutation-Driven Evolution" (2013)
The purpose of this book is to present a new mechanistic theory of mutation-driven evolution based on recent advances in genomics and evolutionary developmental biology. The theory asserts, perhaps somewhat controversially, that the driving force behind evolution is mutation, with natural selection being of only secondary importance. The word 'mutation' is used to describe any kind of change in DNA such as nucleotide substitution, gene duplication/deletion, chromosomal change, and genome duplication. A brief history of the principal evolutionary theories (Darwinism, mutationism, neo-Darwinism, and neo-mutationism) that preceded the theory of mutation-driven evolution is also presented in the context of the last 150 years of research. However, the core of the book is concerned with recent studies of genomics and the molecular basis of phenotypic evolution, and their relevance to mutation-driven evolution. In contrast to neo-Darwinism, mutation-driven evolution is capable of explaining real examples of evolution such as the evolution of olfactory receptors, sex-determination in animals, and the general scheme of hybrid sterility. In this sense the theory proposed is more realistic than its predecessors, and gives a more logical explanation of various evolutionary events.
The idea that mutation is the driving force of evolution and natural selection only secondary is not new. This theory was presented as a non-Darwinian alternative before the modern synthesis and was supported by scientists like Thomas Hunt Morgan (who I already mentioned) and William Bateson (Bateson was a saltationist).TheisticEvolutionist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
Another interesting book is "Biology Revisioned" (1998) by Elizabet Sahtouris. Sahtouris is a non-Darwinian evolutionist who has promoted a radical version of the Gaia hypothesis. Description of the book;
Biology Revisioned presents an engaging look at the changing state of biology and proposes that we reconsider our views of science and life. Harman and Sahtouris suggest that it is an historical accident that physics came to be the generally accepted root discipline of science. If, for example, biology were instead the foundation, life sciences would be analyzed in a complete different way. We would need to look at wholes (organism and ecological systems) prior to parts (fundamental particles). The book examines several theories of “new biology”—simply adding new tool to the current definition and a moderately holistic outlook—but focuses on an even more radical holistic view which assumes the possible presence of consciousness as an underlying layer of physical reality. The authors also suggest that the scientific perspectives of non-Western cultures are invaluable to a complete understanding of science—that Western ideals are no complete without these views.
Here is Sahtouris from an interview commenting on Darwinism. http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/sahtouris.html
We can look at what is happening with the relationship of proteins and genes and cell membranes and all that, and it looks very much as if life does not proceed by accident but by design. And, as I said in my book, the nucleus is really a giant library of genes accumulated throughout evolution which can be drawn on under stress. Creatures such as sharks or cockroaches are very well-adapted and don't need to change (I call them bicycles in a jet-age because they still function very well although other species have gone on with totally different paths of evolution). In other words, life changes itself only when it needs to. It knows how to conserve what works well and change what doesn't work well. That is why you get very uneven evolution, not as in Darwinian theory which would predict a very even rate of accident and even rate of evolution for all species. We certainly know that that is not true and no geneticist today would uphold the ideas of Darwin completely.
TheisticEvolutionist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
Edmund W. Sinnott seems to of had some very similar views to myself. I just discovered a review of his book "The Biology of the Spirit" (1955). Here's part of the review from The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Jun., 1956), p. 120. I highly recommend this book.
Professor Sinnott is not a conventional believer; he rejects the traditional dogma associated with the Christian concept of a personal God at the same time that he cannot bring himself to the point of accepting either himself or his place in the scheme of things-physically and spiritually-as products of natural selection operating on the animate world. The latter process he dismisses as inadequate, if only because he believes that it cannot account for what he terms the "regulatory quality of living stuff," and because he further conceives of man's ability to judge abstract values, such as beauty and truth, to be without selective advantage. He here develops his ideas beyond the point reached in his earlier books, and in doing so concludes that man's mind as well as his body has a biological basis. Few scientists will dispute this conclusion, but to pinpoint this biological basis more specifically, Sinnott proposes that protoplasm is endowed with goal-seeking properties, with its highest present expression being the human spirit. A goal set implies a goal-setter, and in addition, "a Principle of Organization which, through life, brings order out of chaos, spirit out of matter, and personality out of impersonal stuff. This principle we may identify as an attribute of God."
TheisticEvolutionist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
Wilfred Eade Agar also published an article entitled "The concept of Purpose in Biology" The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Sep., 1938), pp. 255-273. He has a very interesting section on purpose on morphogenesis and mentions morphogenetic fields. This was in 1938. I consider many of Rupert Sheldrake's ideas second-hand. Sheldrake still a brilliant writer full of original ideas, but many people are unaware that scientists proposed similar theories before him about fields influencing evolution and development of the organism.TheisticEvolutionist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
A book I have been reading recently is "Cell and Psyche: The Biology of Purpose" by Edmund W. Sinnott. It was published in 1950. Sinnott in his early career published a mainstream textbook on genetics, in his mid-to late career however he seemed to have shifted from mainstream work on plant genetics to discussing the mysteries of metamorphosis, the cell and the mind-body problem. He supported purpose in all biological organisms at all levels of life even down to the cell. I guess he supported a form of holistic panpsychism. His book received a positive review if the The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Mar., 1952), p. 62. Here is a description of his hypothesis from the review;
The essence of Sinnott's view lies in the hypothesis he proposes, namely, "that in the regulatory and organizing processes in protoplasm lies the foundation of what are called the psychological or mental activities in animals and especially in man"; and again in other words "the biological organization (concerned with organic development and physiological activity) and psychical activity (concerned with behaviour and this leading to mind) are fundamentally the same thing". There must certainly be some sort of controlling mechanism, structure, or system in the egg (doubtless in every cell) which definitely foreshadows the character of the particular organism into which it will develop or of which it forms a part. It is this organizations, whatever it may turn out to be in terms of matter and energy, space and time, which, as experienced by the organism, I believe to be simplest manifestation of what in man has become conscious purpose." In this view the genotype and the homeostatic physiological system become the antecedents and rudiments of the Gestalt in the realm of mind, the organizations and purposiveness of living systems at all levels from the action of evolutionary process.
Sinnott published other books and articles supporting a teleological view of evolution. Some of his work has obviously influenced by Rupert Sheldrake. A similar writer was Wilfred Eade Agar. He was both anti-Darwinian and anti-Lamarckian, he was most famous for challenging the Lamarckian findings of William McDougall relating to the inheritance of the effects of training in rats. He published the book "A Contribution to the Theory of the Living Organism" (1943). Similar to Sinnott it's a book that talks about purpose in the organism. William McDougall was a Lamarckian and anti-Darwinist. I have read two of his books. He supported a teleological view where the organism directs its own evolution. This type of Lamarckian evolution was similar to later writers such as Arthur Koestler who wrote a few anti-Darwinist books in the 1970s (The Case of the Midwife Toad, Janus: A Summing Up) attacking the purposeless view of neo-Darwinism.TheisticEvolutionist
September 30, 2013
September
09
Sep
30
30
2013
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
Here's a rather newish book that was published. It has gone rather un-noticed! I did see only review which described it as similar to the work of D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson. Randomness in Evolution by John Tyler Bonner (2013)
John Tyler Bonner, one of our most distinguished and insightful biologists, here challenges a central tenet of evolutionary biology. In this concise, elegantly written book, he makes the bold and provocative claim that some biological diversity may be explained by something other than natural selection. With his customary wit and accessible style, Bonner makes an argument for the underappreciated role that randomness--or chance--plays in evolution. Due to the tremendous and enduring influence of Darwin's natural selection, the importance of randomness has been to some extent overshadowed. Bonner shows how the effects of randomness differ for organisms of different sizes, and how the smaller an organism is, the more likely it is that morphological differences will be random and selection may not be involved to any degree. He traces the increase in size and complexity of organisms over geological time, and looks at the varying significance of randomness at different size levels, from microorganisms to large mammals. Bonner also discusses how sexual cycles vary depending on size and complexity, and how the trend away from randomness in higher forms has even been reversed in some social organisms.
TheisticEvolutionist
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
The following is from the book “Evolution” by Ernest MacBride (1927). “A very popular idea is that Darwin has completely explained evolution and that the hypotheses of “natural selection” and “sexual selection” successfully account for all the varied peculiarities of structure and function which we see around us. A little critical consideration will, we think, convince our readers that, so far from this being the case, Darwin’s theory is in reality no explanation at all, but one great and striking instance of the common illusion of what one of our best contemporary philosophers calls “reification” of words – i.e., the conversion of mere general terms into imaginary things. That every species does in reality produce far more young than can survive is open to no possible kind of doubt. One simple instance of this will suffice. The common thrush lives on an average ten years. It begins to breed at the age of one year, and produces every summer two broods of nestlings, each consisting of four young. In the course of their lives, therefore, a single pair of thrushes bring into the world eighty young, and some of these may be breeding for nine years before the parents die. Since the whole population of thrushes remains about the same from generation to generation, it is obvious that only two of this vast army of children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren can survive their parents; all the rest come to an untimely end. But to put the matter in a nutshell, the fact that James is killed can make no difference to the structure of Tom. The implicit assumption in Darwin’s hypothesis is that continuous inheritable variation occurs constantly in all directions. But to assume this is really to beg the whole question. Variation is not a single thing but a collective term for a whole lot of different things. Continuous variation in any direction is evolution, and it is precisely this which has proved to exist, and, if possible, to be explained. Natural selection is the pruning-knife which trims the buds of the tree of life, but it does not account for the sprouting of the buds nor for the directions in which they tend to grow.” MacBride was an Irish marine biologist and zoologist. He was a supporter of Lamarckian evolution.TheisticEvolutionist
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
Fleeming Jenkin wrote a critical review The Origin of Species in 1867. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeming_Jenkin Jenkin raised some serious objections to natural selection. You can read some of his objections here: http://www.viu.ca/liberalstudies/program%20info/outlines%20(current)/jenkin.aspTheisticEvolutionist
September 29, 2013
September
09
Sep
29
29
2013
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Thanks, I have read that article. I think it is slightly misleading though. The alternatives he lists are not alternatives to Darwinism (natural selection) they seem to be criticism or extensions of neo-Darwinism modern synthesis. He lists quantum evolution, nonlinear evolution, self-organizational theories of evolution etc. His section on neo-Lamarckian "epigenetics" is misleading. Scientists like Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb are Darwinists who have called for an extended synthesis for epigenetics not an alternative to Darwinism. Johnjoe McFadden and his work on Quantum Evolution is not an alternative to Darwinism. McFadden himself has admitted to being a Darwinist. Like I already stated, he's calling for some kind of extended evolutionary synthesis not presenting an alternative to natural selection. Brian Goodwin was probably the most "non-Darwinian" scientist mentioned in the paper. Conclusion from the article;
Other options than the handful of un-Darwinian alternatives we've examined here could have been offered up to scrutiny. Various theories of "autopoesis," for example, might have been covered. These seem to me, however, to fall within the confines of the physics and biology of chaos, though it would be interesting to determine how the views of various chaos theorists diverge, and in what ways. What then follows from all this? First, the abundance? an increasing abundance? of scientific alternatives to Darwinism strongly suggests that Darwinism as presently constituted is not immune to change. Usually, those who talk about such a change talk in terms of dramatic Kuhnian shifts or grand Popperian falsifications. But there are also significant permutations within a science, in which, though original terms remain (as in thermodynamics and quantum physics), their meanings are significantly transformed. So it is, I believe, for ultra-Darwinism. Second, the sheer plurality of competing scientific alternatives poses a problem. In taking only one side of this problem, it becomes hard to accept any one of the competing alternatives as absolutely true once this plurality is recognized. Other alternatives, sufficiently extended or developed, might do as well. Alternatives not yet formulated might come into the picture.
He's correct about the plurality of evolutionary alternatives to Darwinism. I will suggest some other papers in my further posts.TheisticEvolutionist
September 28, 2013
September
09
Sep
28
28
2013
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
I've been a huge fan of Goodwin's work for a while. I suppose that's one reason why I don't like being called a "Darwinist," if "Darwinism" is the sort of thing that excludes Goodwin's approach. TheisticEvolutionist, if you have university-level library access, see if you can find "Darwinism: Six Scientific Alternatives" by Pete A. Y. Gunter (The Pluralist, Vol. 1, No. 1 (SPRING 2006), pp. 13-30.) It's available through JSTOR but I don't think JSTOR is accessible to civilians. I highly recommend Gunter's article!Kantian Naturalist
September 27, 2013
September
09
Sep
27
27
2013
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply