Replies

"I don't read it that way. They just made the heresy comment."

But he is specifically rebutting Gould and Clive Bradley's (who as far as I can tell is not a scientist, but just a socialist *thinker*) claim that he thought that non-gradual evolution was heresy because of Dawkin's political beliefs.

"Ah well, why bother to read a book, if the title alone tells you it must be the sort of book you disapprove of on political grounds? "Dawkins considers this [non gradual evolution] heresy…" No I don't (least of all "because it has a political dimension." If anything, politics might make me approve it, but the point is irrelevant because nature irritatingly neglects her Aesopian social responsibility to provide political allegories for the benefit of Homo sapiens)." (Dawkins)

How the above can be interpreted as anything BUT a refutation of Gould and Bradley's specific allegation that Dawkins based The Selfish Gene on politics rather than science is beyond me.

" With this statement, Ah well, why bother to read a book, if the title alone tells you it must be the sort of book you disapprove of on political grounds?(said about his book The Selfish Gene), he accuses them of politics."

He is as much accusing them of misreading HIS politics as he was saying they had a political agenda (though Bradley obviously has one). He wants to be critiqued on the science.

I am getting a little baffled about why this even matters in this discussion. Does politics affect the views of some scientists? Sure. But in order to convince others though, you have to argue from evidence.

Is this supposed to be evidence that evolution is a foundation of Marxism, which was the point made earlier? This capitalist doesn't see it.

But he is specifically rebutting Gould and Clive Bradley's (who as far as I can tell is not a scientist, but just a socialist *thinker*) claim that he thought that non-gradual evolution was heresy because of Dawkin's political beliefs..

...

How the above can be interpreted as anything BUT a refutation of Gould and Bradley's specific allegation that Dawkins based The Selfish Gene on politics rather than science is beyond me.

It is called a straw man argument. Clive's or Gould's quoted text in Dawkin's article is this in context.

Moreover, in the course of this very full reply, I quote the First Edition of The Selfish Gene as making precisely the same points, in detail, as Gould himself was later to make. Not only is Bradley happy to endorse Gould's criticism of The Selfish Gene without bothering to read the book himself; it appears that Gould didn't read it either. Ah well, why bother to read a book, if the title alone tells you it must be the sort of book you disapprove of on political grounds? "Dawkins considers this [non gradual evolution] heresy…" No I don't (least of all "because it has a political dimension." If anything, politics might make me approve it, but the point is irrelevant because nature irritatingly neglects her Aesopian social responsibility to provide political allegories for the benefit of Homo sapiens). In The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable, I distinguish two kinds of non-gradual evolution, which I call (for reasons explained there) Boeing 747 and Stretched-DC8 evolution. 747 evolution is heresy by any secular standards (it amounts to sudden complex adaptive innovation, as if springing straight from the mind of God). DC8 evolution (sudden changes of large magnitude which do not include increases in adaptive complexity) is not heresy. It probably occurs from time to time.

You will notice that the quotation, which I have highlighted and underlined, does not mention politics. The only conclusion I can make is that Dawkins left it out, if it was even there, yet he apparently adds "[non gradual evolution]". Why would he do that when it would be relevant to his argument to include the explicit mention of politics. No, he creates the politics argument along with his Ad Hominem attack here...Not only is Bradley happy to endorse Gould's criticism of The Selfish Gene without bothering to read the book himself; it appears that Gould didn't read it either.