Why is Modern Synthesis still in force?
Resumen
The Modern Synthesis has been object of harsh criticism. Nowadays, one of them stems from the ‘Intelligent Design Doctrine’. This doctrine questions the possibility of explaining the origin of novel living forms through the process of natural selection that acts on phenotypic characters. However, the Intelligent Design Doctrine does not reject Modern Synthesis in bloc because it accepts its contributions to understand the microevolutionary processes. The aims of this paper are: (i) To explain why the Modern Synthesis is still in force within the scientific community, and (ii) To show how the divide et impera strategy may clarify this situation.
Key words: Modern Synthesis, divide et impera strategy, macroevolution, microevolution, intelligent design, pessimistic induction, Realism, doctrine, theory, truth-likeness.
Texto completo:
PDFReferencias
Arnold, S. J., et al. (2001), “The adaptative landscape as a conceptual bridge between micro and macroevolution,” Genetica 112-113: 9-32.
Ayala, F. (1981), “Is a new evolutionary synthesis necessary?” Science 213: 967971.
Ayala, F. (2006), Darwin and Intelligent Design. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Dembski, W. A. (1999), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press.
Dembski, W. A. (2002), No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Boston: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gould, S, J. (2002), The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kuffman, S. (1995), At Home in the Universe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuhn, Th. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Laudan, L. (1981), “A confutation of convergent realism,” Philosophy of Science 48: 19-49.
Margulis, L. (1993), Symbiosis in Cell Evolution: Microbial Communities in the Archean and Proterozoic Eons, New York: Freeman.
Mayr, E. (1963), Animal Species and Evolution, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Meyer, S. (2004), “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceeding of the Biological Society of Washington 117: 213-239.
Popper, K. (1979), Objective Knowledge, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Psillos, S. (1996), “Scientific realism and the ‘pessimistic induction’,” PSA 1996, Supplement 63 (4): 306-314.
Psillos, S. (1999), Scientific Realism. How Science Tracks Truth, London and New York: Rutledge,
Ruse, M. (1988), Philosophy of Biology Today, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Sapp, J. (2003), Genesis. The Evolution of Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shannon, C. (1948), “A mathematical theory of communication,” Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379-423.
Stanley, S. M. (1979), Macroevolution, Pattern and Process, San Francisco: Freeman.
Torres, J. M. (2010), “The role of biology in the unity of science program,” in Otto Neurath and the Unity of Science, Symons, J. Pombo, O. and Torres, J. M. (eds), NY: Springer, pp. 181-191.
Torres, J. M. (2012), ’Teorias da Evolução e Doutrina do Desenho Inteligente’ in Fundamentos e Desafios do Evolucionismo, 4. “Centro de Filosofia das Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa” (Portugal).
Webster, G. and Goodwin, B. (1984), “A structuralist approach to morphology,” Rivista di Biologia 77: 503-510.
Webster, G. and Goodwin, B. (1996), Form and Transformation: Generative and Relational Principle in Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Enlaces refback
- No hay ningún enlace refback.
Revista semestral editada por el Centro de Estudios Filosóficos, Políticos
y Sociales Vicente Lombardo Toledano de la Secretaría de Educación Pública,
la Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa y Edicions UIB de la Universitat de les Illes Balears.
Lombardo Toledano 51, Col. Ex-Hda. Guadalupe Chimalistac,
Del. Alvaro Obregón, C.P. 01050, México, D.F.
Tels. (5255) 5661-4679 y 5661-4987
Fax: (5255) 5661-1787