In these two articles, Gould expands upon ideas first stated in his
books.
In the first, he concentrates on the idea that, although natural
selection is important it is not the only evolutionary mechanism
operative. Indirectly, this argument lessens the role of genes in the
overall picture without overlooking their central role in the selection
mechanism. He also rebuts Dennett. He says of "Darwin's Dangerous
Idea" ..."His limited and superficial book reads like a caracature of a
caracature - for if Richard Dawkins has trivialized Darwin's richness by
adhering to the strictest form of adaptionist argument in a maximally
reductionist mode, then Dennett, as Dawkin's publicist, manages to
convert an already vitiated and improbable account into an even more
simplistic and uncomprimising doctrine."
He focuses on Dennett's belief that evolution is algorithmic. Dennet
also believes that the mind is algorithmic and in both cases is in total
opposition to the notions I have tried to present due to Rosen. This is
a major point where the "complexity" scientists seem to fall into two
camps.
In the second paper, he takes on what he terms "evolutionary psychology"
which has even more to say about the ongoing discussion here.
he also clarifies his ideas about punctuated equilibrium and rebuts some
of Dennett's distortions of that idea. (It is interesting that Lester
Thurow, in his book "The Future of Capatalism" uses Gould's punctuated
equilibrium as one of two major metaphors with which to make economic
analysis. The practice of intertwining ecological and economic ideas is
fairly common.)
What I'd like to focus on is an idea that seems crucial to our
discussion here. I'll quote him directly:
".........natural selection requires Mendelian inheritance to be
effective. Genetic evolution works upon such a substrate and can
therefore be Darwinian. Cultural (or memetic) change manifestly
operates on the radically different substrate of Lamarckian inheritance,
or the passage of acquired characters to subsequent generations.
.......... This crucial difference between biological and cultural
evolution also undermines the self-proclaimed revolutionary pretensions
of a much-publicized doctrine - "evolutionary psychology" - that could
be quite useful if its proponents would trade their propensity for
cultism and ultra-darwinian feality for a healthy dose of modesty.
In a separate post I'll add another author's comments to the discussion.
Respectfully,
Don Mikulecky