What a great find, Peter. A more complete statement of "Darwin as god" can hardly be imagined. A more malleable god can hardly be imagined: whatever we do is what he wants.

He forgot the third version ... whoever has the gold, makes the rules.

Eugenics, Nazism and communism were all inspired by the need to marginalize and destroy lower orders, races and classes that threatened the survival of the good guys

Christianity, Islam and Judaism were all inspired by the need to marginalize and destroy heretics, infidels and witches that threatened the survival of the good guys.

David:

Thanks. I think it disappears tomorrow, so print it out for your book.

daniel:

Just so.

"David Cohen�s frequent reminders of how popular darwinism bears little resemblance to the modern synthesis advanced by professional biologists is nicely illustrated in this bit of pabulum, which hangs on the popular perception that evolution is driven entirely by survival imperatives. No ambiguous random mutation here"

???

That's a very confused conception of evolution you've got.

Mutation is random, sure, but selection is not random; it is driven by survival in the environment.

No, its not.

What is not?

Mutations are random, but which expressed mutations survive is to varying degrees determined by their usefulness in the environment, so it is not random in the same sense, though dumb luck is still a factor.

Modern synthesis is mentioned above. It is right that modern synthesis is not the same as just natural selection, as it introduces genetic drift based on allele frequencies so there is more importance for randomness, depending on how important you think genetic drift is (some scientists think it more so than others).

I apologise if David Cohen is an evolutionary expert writing a book about the difference between common ideas of evolution and what the science really says, but I kind of suspect that what we have here is a bunch of (probably religious) amateurs who don't really know what they are talking about, no offence.

Anon:

Religious amateurs? I assure you, sir or madam, that you are dealing with religious professionals here.

You have just added your voice to those of a distinguished list of resident secularists whose favourite riposte is that we "don't understand." It seems to save them the time and energy of actually defending their position. So enlighten us. Are you saying natural selection always weeds out all unfavourable or neutral mutations and that unfit or neutral ones are doomed?

No offense taken. I'm not sure that I rise to the level of amateur, as evolution is not a subject about which I am particularly interested. I suppose I do have to cop to "religious", though. I apologize, in turn, if I'm wrong, but you seem to assume that religion and critical thinking are incompatible. As it happens, I'm not overly skeptical of the existence of a natural world that operates under a set of rules without obvious supernatural interference. No discovery or theory can have the least relevance to my faith in G-d's existence, which means that I am no more a devotee of Intelligent Design than I am of evolution.

Having cleared my throat, let me know move on to the two related questions you raise about the mechanism of natural selection.

The first question has to do with how fine a sieve is nature. Darwin posited that it was a fairly fine sieve: nature, red in tooth and claw, relentlessly culling the weak from the species. In fact, nature is relatively forgiving and a disparate selection of genomes survive together quite nicely. Indeed, the existence of a diverse biosphere always sat uncomfortably with classic Darwinism --- once the mechanism of genetic inheritence was understood. My main point about natural selection is that, after Watson and Crick, natural selection is trivial. Mutations happen. Will a particular mutation survive? If it is not incompatible with survival.

Your second implicit question has to do with the mechanism of natural selection as metaphor, and the related problem of insurmountable teleology. Mutations happen. The resulting creature might look much different from his brothers, but not be any more or less fit. Similarly, a mutation might occur that would ordinarily make for a fitter genome, but the individual possessing it dies without reproducing. Or, perhaps, the mutation is lost through an entirely exogenous event; for example, the bacteria that mutates a more efficient enzyme for breaking down sugars, right before a course of antibiotics, or the Jewish telepath in 1939 Berlin. Except tautalogically, survival of a mutation is not a sign of increased fitness, nor is its failure to survive.

Which brings us to teleology. Mutations can't be teleological (unless we're talking about religion, of course). Survival cannot be teleological. As a result, natural selection cannot be teleological. And yet, we see people taking about how natural selection is driven by survival. Now, you can respond, absolutely correctly, that this is just a convenient metaphor. But it is the core of the popular understanding of Darwinism and, speaking philosophically for a moment and thus believing that all ambiguous language conceals a philosophical misunderstanding, the fact that Darwinism cannot be spoken of, by everyone from Dawkins to me, without using teleological language, points to a real problem with the theory as it is properly understood.

Which brings us back to Mr. Schulman's article and natural selection as metaphor. First, I have to say that his easy assumption that all societies developed the Golden Rule is pop sociology at its worst. He would be hard pressed to fit feudal Japan, among many other cultures, into this framework, and yet feudal Japan was by any measure (other than the religious) a successful (and thus fit) society.

Second, what is the mechanism by which natural selection would work on a society? Mr. Schulman punts. Are there random mutations? No, in fact society is expressly meant to further a particular set of goals, and changes are made to enhance that quest. Is there some clear mechanism by which less fit societies fall? No, in fact societies that seem less fit on every level survive for centuries, and even millenium.

Let's end by whipping this poor dead horse one last time. Our society is currently processing a mutation: should we allow homosexuals to marry? The arguments made, pro and con, are self-consciously teleological. Allowing gay marriage will further our quest for a just society, says one side. It will destroy our quest for a righteous society, says the other. This may not be intelligent, but it is certainly design.

Peter Burnet:

Usually but not necessarily always. Hey if you want to read about modern synthesis there are enough books and websites out there, you don't need me to explain it to you.

It's just reading your post, Woody Allen's quote to the guy in the cinema line in Annie Hall came to mind: "Aren't you ashamed to... pontificate like that?"

Christianity, Islam and Judaism were all inspired by the need to marginalize and destroy heretics, infidels and witches that threatened the survival of the good guys.

Complete, utter, troll-feces.* You ignore the Great Commission, found in Matthew 28:19 -- Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.

The point is not to marginalize and destroy, but to persuade and convert, and that's true even if various Christians at various times have failed to live up to. You need to pay attention to the world as it is, and not as the NYT editorial board would like it to be.

*=synonym used in observance of OJ's house rules on profanity

Mike:
Daniel's remarks are just "toro poopoo". Christianity sprang up in response to God's activity on our behalf, for Christ died to save and free the lost. That's the message that inspires my faith.

Well, David, maybe you and Dawkins have to speak of natural selection teleologically, but me and Jesus do not.

See parable of the mustard seed.

David, of course, is exempt, but Dave W. better be careful about his faith in Jesus. If he follows through, he'll have to accept natural selection, and accordng to the slippery slope arguments so favored by evangelicals, next thing you know, he'll be a raving darwinist.

(Anon. sign your posts; there's more than one anon around here. It gets confusing.)

Mike, somebody forgot to tell those Christians that they were Christians.

Harry:
"I am not a darwinist". "I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the darwinist party." I also have a secure tether attached to a trustworthy God above.

So you accept selection?