|
Author
|
Topic: Casey Luskin: The Evolutionary Gospel According to Sean B. Carroll
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 07. March 2007 15:49
The Evolutionary Gospel According to Sean B. Carroll
A Review of Sean B. Carroll’s The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution (W.W. Norton, 2006).
by Casey Luskin
Summary: Sean B. Carroll’s book The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution makes large promises but fails to deliver. He claims that science will remove “any doubt” about evolution, and he hopes his scare-tactics about a coming environmental apocalypse will convince people to just accept evolution and save the planet. As a conservationist myself, I don’t need, as Carroll taunts me, to “accept evolution or you won’t ‘think at all’” in order to understand the importance of conserving our natural resources.
To read the entire paper, click here.
[ 17. March 2007, 09:47: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Hatfield
Member
Member # 4342
|
posted 12. March 2007 21:03
Luskin's scholarship needs work. He explicitly claims that Carroll ONLY uses a 'capitalized version' of Nature, suggesting he is sneaking in some sort of pantheism as a succedaneum for deity, an aside which is supportive of his general thesis that evolutionary biology as practiced is actually akin to a secular Gospel.
Whatever the merits of the latter argument (which I find dubious), the former suggestive claim submitted by Mr. Luskin is false. Skimming through MY copy of Carroll's book, in the final chapter ("The Palm Trees of Wyoming") I found:
(1) one instance of 'Nature' capitalized
(2) two instances of 'nature' not capitalized
All three examples appeared on the SAME PAGE (pg. 267 in the Norton hardback) and there seems to be little difference in the sense of the word as used. Clearly, Luskin's claim as stated is (surprise!) FALSE; his brief as presently formulated (Vs. 1.0?!?!) is flawed and should be rejected. If one has to make up stories to buttress a prejudicial argument which seeks to impeach the motives of scientists such as Carroll, this suggests that the rest of his argument is weak!
Respectfully submitted....SH
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 13. March 2007 00:56
Luskin wrote quote:
As a conservationist myself, I don’t need, as Carroll taunts me, to “accept evolution or you won’t ‘think at all’” in order to understand the importance of conserving our natural resources.
That's from the conclusion of Luskin's review. I had a hard time parsing the single and double quotation marks to figure out what was being quoted from the book, what was 'scare' quotes, and what was fictional. There's no page reference given for the quotation, in contrast to Luskin's style in the preceding pages. The nearest prose I could find to that 'quotation' (the words between the double quotation marks) in a very fast scan is on page 39 of the same edition -- Norton hardback -- where at the end of the first chapter, after a discussion of the potential consequences of global warming for Antarctic icefish and other cold-adapted species, Carroll wrote quote:
Knowledge of evolutionary biology is therefore no mere academic pursuit, nor is acceptance of its facts a matter that should be open to political or philosophical debate.
Sir Peter Medawar also stated that "the alternative to thinking in evolutionary terms is not to think at all." That is an alternative our species can no longer afford.
I presume that's where Luskin got his mangled pseudo-quotation. If not, I invite him to tell us where his supposed quotation comes from.
RBH
ETA: I should note also that Carroll's passage in that section is not about conservation, so Luskin's self-proclaimed status as a conservationist is merely irrelevant and his remarks about Carroll supposedly arguing for the virtues of conservation is a non sequitur.
[ 13. March 2007, 01:02: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 13. March 2007 02:36
RBH,
Luskin is referring to point #4 of section 6. You need to follow both Carroll's and Luskin's line of thought to put 2 and 2 together, which is rather easily done.
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 14. March 2007 00:10
I don't see a citation to the quoted material there. I'm asking where the stuff in the quotation marks in the OP came from.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 14. March 2007 11:54
For archival purposes, I'm quoting the whole of the section above here: quote:
Summary: Sean B. Carroll’s book The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution makes large promises but fails to delivers. He claims that science will remove “any doubt” about evolution, and he hopes his scare-tactics about a coming environmental apocalypse will convince people to just accept evolution and save the planet. As a conservationist myself, I don’t need, as Carroll taunts me, to “accept evolution or you won’t ‘think at all’” in order to understand the importance of conserving our natural resources."
It's that stuff in single and double quotation marks in the last sentence that I'm inquiring about.
[ 14. March 2007, 11:55: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 14. March 2007 17:22
It looks to me like the stuff in the double quotes is his paraphrase , while the stuff in the single quotes is the actual quotation.
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 14. March 2007 17:42
Nel wrote quote:
It looks to me like the stuff in the double quotes is his paraphrase , while the stuff in the single quotes is the actual quotation.
Well, that's the opposite of Luskin's use of double quotation marks in the rest of the review. That's why it's confusing. Paraphrases normally don't get punctuated as though they're direct quotations, even by lawyers.
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 15. March 2007 11:51
Actually, paraphrasing through the use of quotation marks is common in the english language, Rex did it to me several times in this very forum (I think the proper descriptive phrase is "scare quoting"). I havn't read the book nor asked Casey so I can't say for sure. Regardless, none of this has any bearing on the veracity of the argument as presented in his article. So I'm not sure why you've wasted so much bandwidth on it.
[ 15. March 2007, 15:36: Message edited by: Nel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Hatfield
Member
Member # 4342
|
posted 17. March 2007 00:35
I'm still waiting for anyone here, the moderator, Mr. Luskin or others to comment on my prior post.
Luskin's article misrepresents Carroll's usage of the word 'nature' in order to make a rhetorical point. It was ridiculously easy to find counter-examples to Luskin's claim, all on the same page.
Does ISCID and its on-line forums intend to overlook blatant misrepresentations? At best, Luskin's rhetoric represents a partisan sloppiness; at worst, it's a bald-faced lie. I would think that a reputable academic organization would address a serious criticism that speaks to the credibility of the article in question.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 17. March 2007 10:03
Scott Hatfield,
Your criticism is valid, if true. However, your troll-like behavior and taunting rhetoric is not acceptable.
In particular, if I had to infer a main purpose for your posting here it would not be an interest in genuine discussion, but rather to make the point that ISCID is not a "reputable academic organization."
That indicates that you have an agenda against our organization. Having such an agenda is fine, but please don't feel like you can indiscriminately use our resources to facilitate that agenda.
The mistake that you make here is to presume that ISCID endorses the quality of articles in its Archive. The Archive is intended for better than rough draft ideas. So the standard is not that of a professional journal, and is not meant to serve that purpose. It is meant to get ideas rolling, not to meet some conventional, beuracratic standard of scholarship.
The point of the discussion in Brainstorms is to refine those ideas, not to abort them as "final".
[ 17. March 2007, 10:08: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic