Chance, Evolution, and the Metaphysical Implications of Paleontological Practice

For several decades, a debate has been waged over how to interpret the significance of fossils from the Burgess Shale and Cambrian Explosion. Stephen Jay Gould argued that if the “tape of life” was rerun, then the resulting lineages would differ radically from what we find today, implying that humans are a happy accident of evolution. Simon Conway Morris argued that if the “tape of life” was rerun, the resulting lineages would be similar to what we now observe, implying that intelligence would still emerge from an evolutionary process. Recent methodological innovations in paleontological practice call into question both positions and suggest that global claims about the history of life, whether in terms of essential contingency or predictable convergence, are unwarranted.

The structure of evolutionary theory: Beyond Neo-Darwinism, Neo-Lamarckism and biased historical narratives about the Modern Synthesis

The last decades have seen frequent calls for a more extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) that will supposedly overcome the limitations in the current evolutionary framework with its intellectual roots in the Modern Synthesis (MS). Some radical critics even want to entirely abandon the current evolutionary framework, claiming that the MS (often erroneously labelled “Neo-Darwinism”) is outdated, and will soon be replaced by an entirely new framework, such as the Third Way of Evolution (TWE). Such criticisms are not new, but have repeatedly re-surfaced every decade since the formation of the MS, and were particularly articulated by developmental biologist Conrad Waddington and paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. Waddington, Gould and later critics argued that the MS was too narrowly focused on genes and natural selection, and that it ignored developmental processes, epigenetics, paleontology and macroevolutionary phenomena. More recent critics partly recycle these old arguments and argue that non-genetic inheritance, niche construction, phenotypic plasticity and developmental bias necessitate major revision of evolutionary theory. Here I discuss these supposed challenges, taking a historical perspective and tracing these arguments back to Waddington and Gould. I dissect the old arguments by Waddington, Gould and more recent critics that the MS was excessively gene centric and became increasingly “hardened” over time and narrowly focused on natural selection. Recent critics have consciously or unconsciously exaggerated the long-lasting influence of the MS on contemporary evolutionary biology and have underestimated many post-Synthesis developments, particularly Neutral Theory and evolutionary quantitative genetics. Critics have also painted a biased picture of the MS as a more monolithic research tradition than it ever was, and have downplayed the pluralistic nature of contemporary evolutionary biology, particularly the long-lasting influence of Sewall Wright with his emphasis on gene interactions and stochasticity. Finally, I outline and visualize the conceptually split landscape of contemporary evolutionary biology, with four different stably coexisting analytical frameworks: adaptationism, mutationism, neutralism and selectionism. I suggest that the field can accommodate the challenges raised by critics, although structuralism (“EvoDevo”) and macroevolution remain to be conceptually integrated within mainstream evolutionary theory.

Projekt? Tak! Ale czy inteligentny?

Autor porusza różne tematy związane z teorią inteligentnego projektu. Przedmiotem jego rozważań są: naukowa wartość teorii inteligentnego projektu; rozróżnienie naturalizmu metafizycznego od naturalizmu metodologicznego oraz jego rola w praktyce naukowej i znaczenie dla wierzących naukowców; relacja między nauką a religią na przykładzie zasady NOMA, której twórcą jest Stephen Jay Gould; oraz zagadnienie nauczania nauk przyrodniczych - na przykład, czy dopuszczać, by na lekcjach przyrody dyskutowano także koncepcje kreacjonistyczne.

Teoria przerywanej równowagi - główne założenia i pojęcia

Artykuł przedstawia podstawy teorii przerywanej równowagi sformułowanej jako alternatywne względem gradualistycznego darwinizmu ujęcie przebiegu makroewolucji. Twórcami teorii przerywanej równowagi są amerykańscy paleontologowie Stephen Jay Gould i Niles Eldredge, według których proces makroewolucji nie zachodzi stopniowo, małymi kroczkami, lecz charakteryzuje się długimi okresami stazy, które co jakiś czas przerywane są szybkimi - w skali geologicznej - przemianami organizmów.

CONFLITO ENTRE CIÊNCIA E RELIGIÃO EM GOULD, HARRIS E DAWKINS

um dos assuntos recorrentes do debate sobre o ateísmo é a identidade que a tese do conflito entre ciência e religião costuma ocupar no discurso. A criação e divulgação da “tese de conflito” tem respaldo nas obras neoateístas. Sendo muito importante tanto os posicionamentos mais favoráveis à religião, neste caso, temos as afirmações de Stephen Jay Gould, que luta contra os aspectos negativos da tese. Por outro lado há pensadores ateus como Sam Harris e Richard Dawkins, que estão contra as afirmações de Gould, como se a tese de conflito fosse parte importante da identicidade ateísta. Este trabalho visa pensar como os dois lados antagônicos se posicionam.

A Brief (Hi)Story of Just-So Stories in Evolutionary Science

In this essay, I examine the usage of the term “just-so story.” I attempt to show that just-so storytelling can be seen as an epistemic concept that, in various ways, tackles the epistemological and methodological problems relating to evolutionary explanations qua historical/narrative explanations. I identify two main, yet mutually exclusive, strategies of employing the concept of a just-so story: a negative strategy and a positive strategy. Subsequently, I argue that these strategies do not satisfactorily capture the core of the “original” meaning advanced by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin at the end of the 1970s. I revisit the foundation(s) of their anti-adaptationist critique in order to reframe it as a critique of distinctive methodological manners and epistemic maxims related to historical inquiry. Last but not least, I suggest that contemporary evolutionary thinkers have two conceptually different options: they can either adhere to the “original” meaning of the term “just-so story” or accept that “just-so story” is a term equivalent to “implausible narrative explanation.”

The Great Conversation

Thomas Berry lamented that humans have dropped out of the Great Conversation with the rest of the natural world. We’ve objectified a world of things—imagining they exist solely for human use. If nature speaks, we are no longer listening. Yet the saints of the great spiritual traditions have long perceived trees, islands, rivers, and canyons as teachers, mirroring the inner world of the soul. Hildegard of Bingen attended to the greening power of trees. Ignatius Loyola was shaped by a cave experience. The Baal Shem Tov spoke the languages of birds, plants, and clouds. Focusing on a cottonwood tree as his own principal tutor, Belden Lane asks how the masters incorporated these earthy mentors into their spiritual lives. He backpacks into wild terrain to experience the power these nature archetypes had for them. Hiking through a recently burned Wyoming forest, for example, he understands Catherine of Siena’s fascination with fire as an image of the Divine. The book asks how spiritual guides in nature can serve us at various stages of our lives: As the child longs to fly like a bird; the adolescent seeks to flame out like a star; the adult needs the river’s flow; the elder ascends the mountain. All of these demand intensive soul work. Reconnecting with nature is the great ecological and spiritual necessity of our times. The earth and our souls depend upon it. As Stephen Jay Gould affirms, “We won’t fight to save what we haven’t learned to love.”