Re: Stephen J Gould and progress (aargh, point mutation)

Grahame, Bob D. (
Fri, 10 Jan 1997 9:58:00 -0500

Damien Broderick wrote :-
>Even better is Dawkins' CLIMBING MOUNT IMPROBABLE.
It's a more accessible book, especially to people educated since the
early '70s, as it uses computing analogies throughout. However, it states
little new, and I have some real problems with some of it's logical
arguments. Not that I think the conclusions are wrong, just that he
trusts too much in the programmers not building assumptions into the
models. The same sort of error (although on a far smaller scale) that
Paul Erlich and the Club of Rome made with their economic models. He's so
sure he's right, he isn't looking to see if the models are subtly biased.
The web-spinning programs are a good example.

Blind Watchmaker still says it better, and is more convincing IMO.