Posted on 06/16/2007 1:09:15 AM PDT by balch3
Gould's arguments do not support creationism. They deal with the pace of evolution, not whether or not it occurred. It is a scientific discussion, and should be of no interest to creationists, who deny it all anyway. Why should you care if there were hiccups in the rate of evolution if those hiccups did not change anything but the rate?
I find it amusing that creationists distort and quote mine what scientists say to such a degree that scientists often don't recognize their own writings. It's a pity that Gould is not here to defend himself.
I know that nothing will change your mind until you're marching off to eternity in Hell. Fine by me. But when you are, do you really think you'll still feel that this inane rebellion against God's Truth was worth the price you'll pay?
We'll see, huh?
;-/
PS I am well aware that Gould clung to Darwinism in spite of the evidence. He admits that the fossil evidence shows sudden appearance and stasis, which he further admits is inconsistent with Darwinian evolution. So what does he do? He amends the dilemma by trying to make the theory of evolution fit the fossil record (and his attempts to do so were a miserable failure). Just goes to show that the Church of Darwin is a religion, not science. Creationists predict sudden appearance, stasis, and catastrophic extinction...all of which are born out by the fossil evidence. So when it comes to the fossil evidence...
CREATIONISTS 1....Church of Darwin 0
==See this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.
See this: A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp#contents
Don’t you think that’s just a bit convenient?
I switched from YEC to a modified version of theistic evolution while attending a YEC Christian college. The lack of a coherent creationist model to fit with all of the data forced me to change my mind.
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp#contents
The first section, really the introduction, of this essay includes the global flood in the argument as if the global flood actually happened. I assume it goes downhill from there but I stopped reading at that point.
This stuff is simply not science. It is religious belief masquerading as science.
That’s too bad, because the latest prophet from the Church of Darwin (Richard Dawkins) says that Creation Scientists ask imminently scientific questions. Indeed, his faith in the Church of Darwin is so great that he thinks that NOMA should be completely obliterated...and I’m quite positive that Creationists/IDers would be happy to oblige him.
Now, getting back to the scientific study of creation, one of the predictions of Creation Science is that the geologic column will show evidence of a worldwide flood. This prediction will either be born out by the evidence or it will not. And so far, it appears that the evidence is on the side of Creation Science (as usual)—GGG
Actually, what creationists do with the writings of evolutionary biologists and other mainstream scientists is precisely what they emphasize ought not to be done to the Bible, namely cherry-picking quotations which, when taken out of context, can be construed to mean something that the book or other literary work as a whole could not.
“Gould clung to Darwinism in spite of the evidence” is not a fair depiction of Gould’s standpoint at all. He found the evidence for evolution overwhelmingly persuasive (because it is), and was exploring a hypothesis that would treat the fossil record as providing accurate data. But it may turn out to be the case that the data is in fact too piecemeal, and that (rather than punctuated equilibrium) is why the fossil record proceeds in fits and starts (but fits and starts that nonetheless allow one to clearly trace evolution over time, the only topic of debate being whether it moves steadily and gradually or not).
I would challenge you to read a whole book by Gould or any other mainstream biologist, and then come back here and claim that any of their quotes, taken in the context of their book (not to mention their life’s work), indicates they found serious problems with the theory of evolution as a whole, and didn’t just engage in scientific discussion of the specifics.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
So what are you suggesting, that we not quote Church of Darwin evangelists? What would you have us do, post entire books to get at a quote? The point is, the Church of Darwin can’t help but contribute to the unraveling of their own pagan creation myth because the evidence is against them. BTW, I have read Gould and many other Church of Darwin devotees. And as you pointed out, I was sure to mention that he continued to cling to his Darwinist faith in spite of the evidence against Darwinism that he himself chose to shine the spotlight on.
==He found the evidence for evolution overwhelmingly persuasive (because it is), and was exploring a hypothesis that would treat the fossil record as providing accurate data.
Look, Gould admits that Darwin’s predictions are not confirmed by the fossil record. But rather than admitting that the Church of Darwin has been falsified by the fossil record he instead invents the biological equivalently of geocentric epicycles in order to keep his natural selection god in play. And everytime the evidence forces them to make such admissions, I for one plan to call them on it. And besides, it’s not like the quote mining you so lament is a one way street. Your talkorigins.com link is full of quote mining in the opposite direction. When it comes to the Creation/evolution wars...JUDGE AND PREPARE TO BE JUDGED.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.