Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: betty boop
As it turns out, Darwinist theory has been criticized with increasing effectiveness from within the scientific community in recent times. Word needs to get out on this.

Although evidently Nobel Laureate biologist Jacques Monod continues to uphold the Darwinist doctrine in all its metaphysical purity.

Monod doesn't "continue" to uphold anything. He died in 1976. Does this say something about your idea of "recent times"?

46 posted on 09/25/2010 8:25:41 PM PDT by Stultis (Democrats. Still devoted to the three S's: Slavery, Segregation and Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]


To: Stultis; spirited irish; Alamo-Girl; TXnMA; kosta50; YHAOS; Quix; Amos the Prophet; Diamond
Although evidently Nobel Laureate biologist Jacques Monod continues to uphold the Darwinist doctrine in all its metaphysical purity.

Stultis, you wrote: "Monod doesn't 'continue' to uphold anything. He died in 1976."

Well then let me revise and extend my remarks. Monod continued to uphold Darwinist doctrine in all its metaphysical purity until the day he died. I.e., he never "recanted."

Are you suggesting that more recently Darwinian biologists have retreated from their doctrine of random mutation and natural selection as exclusively accounting for the rise of species, or that they have questioned the adequacy of the Newtonian scientific framework with respect to living systems?

This would be news to me.

It seems Monod himself strenuously resisted any departure from the received orthodoxy. Indeed, his ongoing public animosity toward Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a major pioneer of open systems theory, is instructive:

Bertalanffy was a person whom Jacques Monod loathed, and whom he (among many others) castigated as a "holist." By their very nature, open systems require going outside a system, going from a smaller system to a larger one to understand its behaviors. Stated another way, openness means that even a complete understanding of internal parts or subsystems cannot, of itself, account for what happens when a system is open. This flies in the face of the "analysis," or reductionism, that Monod identified with "objective" science. [Robert Rosen, Essays on Life Itself, 2000; p. 18]

Now living organisms happen to be open, not closed, systems.

Bertalanffy, who "has become well known as the father of General System Theory" ... [ibid, p. 31]

...came to develop this [theory] as an alternative to reductionist, Cartesian ideas, which he felt were not only scientifically inadequate for biology but had deplorable social and ethical side effects for humanity at large....

No wonder Monod loathed him!

I have to say that I regard Monod as remarkably closed-minded for a scientist....

This is one of the more interesting — and revealing — "scientific squabbles" I've ever come across....

58 posted on 09/26/2010 8:00:41 AM PDT by betty boop (Seek truth and beauty together; you will never find them apart. — F. M. Cornford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson