This is a response to Bora's most recent post in this thread. Please
read the original for context.
I agree with some of Bora's concerns with "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," but
I wonder to what extent they arise from errors in Dennett's reasoning as
opposed to errors inferred from his rhetoric. I didn't get the sense
that Dennett felt that human-like intelligent life forms were an
evolutionary inevitability. Rather, such organisms don't require
extra-evolutionary explanations. Granted, Dennett does suggest that
certain characteristics are expected to evolve (e.g., photoreceptors),
but does he really go on to suggest that the entire human phenotype is
expected to evolve? The "dangerous idea," not being evolution itself, is
that the existence of our species on this planet in this universe
requires no supernatural a posteriori explanation. Does Dennett really
argue that the physical laws of the universe would predict, a priori, the
evolution of our species?
Dennett does go on a bit in his criticism of Gould, not so much with
regard to his work, but with regard to his writing. Is it fair to say
that Dennett's criticism of Gould is related to his perception that Gould
has exaggerated the impact of (1) the theory of punctuated equilibrium and
(2) "The spandrels of San Marco...?"
Rich Kliman
