Einstein's hidden worlds

Inexplicable Caprice From Top to Bottom

Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated . . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen.
     - Stanley Salthe

[There are] hundreds of other evolutionary scientists (non-creationists) who contend that natural selection is politics, not science, and that we are in a quagmire because of staggering commercial investment in a Darwinian industry built on an inadequate theory.
   - Suzan Mazur

Schützenberger quotes

Schützenberger:

Biology is, of course, not my specialty. The participation of mathematicians in the overall assessment of evolutionary thought has been encouraged by the biologists themselves, if only because they presented such an irresistible target. Richard Dawkins, for example, has been fatally attracted to arguments that would appear to hinge on concepts drawn from mathematics and from the computer sciences, the technical stuff imposed on innocent readers with all of his comic authority. Mathematicians are, in any case, epistemological zealots. It is normal for them to bring their critical scruples to the foundations of other disciplines. And finally, it is worth observing that the great turbid wave of cybernetics has carried mathematicians from their normal mid-ocean haunts to the far shores of evolutionary biology. There up ahead, Rene Thom and Ilya Prigogine may be observed paddling sedately toward dry land, members of the Santa Fe Institute thrashing in their wake. Stuart Kauffman is among them. An interesting case, a physician half in love with mathematical logic, burdened now and forever by having received a Papal Kiss from Murray Gell-Mann. This ecumenical movement has endeavored to apply the concepts of mathematics to the fundamental problems of evolution -- the interpretation of functional complexity, for example. [from here]

Okay, one more:

Speaking ironically, I might say that all we can hear at the present time is the great anthropic hymnal, with even a number of mathematically sophisticated scholars keeping time as the great [Darwinian] hymn is intoned by tapping their feet. The rest of us should, of course, practice a certain suspension of judgment.

Michael Ruse States Why Darwin Should Not Be Publicly Challenged

Suzan Mazur, who wrote about the Altenberg 16 conference on the "Extended Synthesis," posted an e-mail chain conversation at her site: "From October 16 – 24, 2007, [Stanley] Salthe ran an email chain on the [Jerry] Fodor “Pigs” story with some of the science elites throwing in their two cents."

Said Stan Salthe:
“Folks – There’s not much new in this below, but, given Fodor’s prominence, and the place of publication, I thought I would pass it on.”

Michael Ruse, philosopher:
“In my opinion Fodor’s piece is grotesquely and immorally irresponsible – he has done no homework on evolutionary theory – to say that natural selection did not shape the guppy and the fruitfly is ludicrous of course, every creationist in north america is salivating today – even though, they are the people who push adaptation more than even me! think that this one won’t be used in the argument over what should be taught in schools?

Today, I am deeply ashamed to be a philosopher”

Stuart Newman, cell biologist:

“Fodor’s piece seems pretty reasonable to me, in fact, kind of obvious. To say that organisms at any stage of evolution have only a limited array of condition-dependent inherent characteristics, or developmental pathways, and selection can do no more than choose among these, has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism.”

Michael Ruse:
“You are very naive – it has everything to do with creationism – of course, to deny adaptationism is not to endorse creationism – but to write a piece slagging off natural selection in that way, is to give a piece of candy to the creationists – I am sure that duane gish has already incorporated this into his talks of course natural selection has to work on an array of given things, but this is not to deny selection – especially not through fodor’s silly arguments about analogies – and certainly not adaptationism the point of course is that fodor did not simply write a technical piece on adaptation – he wrote a piece flamboyantly denying selection in today’s climate, where we have just had two ultra right supreme court justices appointed, I think his behavior is somewhere between stupid and wicked”

Emphases are mine. ... Apparently, Supreme Court justices who elect to not dictate to the states what is and isn't science might not agree with Judge Jones' schlocky philosophy of science and that makes them "ultra right."  Ruse has a moment here where he descends into "Duane Gish Syndrome."  Is he an anticreationist or a secular creationist?