I think that requiring speciation etc. to be entirely explicable by naturalistic forces is sound. I read "naturalistic" as being "in line with the way nature works". At this stage of human history, "nature" and "the visible universe" are essentially congruent.
As for the commitment to materialism, I fear Lewontin overreaches himself on a similar point of semantics. Natural scientists have a commitment to the material, to things that can be sensed and measured and arranged.
So far in the history of natural philosophy, the material, mundane, the realm of the senses ... is all we have had. If I were to commit to the materialistic, then I have biased myself a priori simply by how I have chosen my terms.
Speaking for myself, if the "bottom-up" approach converges compellingly on a superhuman designer, I'll sign on. I maintain that any honest scientist, when faced with a shift in the premises, shifts the model to fit the facts.
Mind you, the facts that would support such an extraordinary intellectual frameshift would have to withstand seriosuly adversarial review. To quote Carl - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'
I also want to suggest that a superhuman designer who can be investigated by science nust be, or have a major aspect that is, not supernatural. The evidence to decide the question must come from, and be contained within, nature. Otherwise science is not qualified to comment.
cheers js |
