Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gould Strikes Back At Creationists
Indepedent.co.uk ^ | 4-09-2002

Posted on 04/09/2002 11:31:41 AM PDT by JediGirl

Eminent biologist hits back at the creationists who 'hijacked' his theory for their own ends

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

09 April 2002

Stephen Jay Gould, one of the great evolutionary biologists of our time, will publish his "magnum opus", this month, in which he lambasts creationists for deliberately distorting his theories to undermine the teaching of Darwinism in schools.

Professor Gould accuses creationists of having exploited the sometimes bitter dispute between him and his fellow Darwinists to promulgate the myth that the theory of evolution is riven with doubts and is, therefore, just as valid as biblical explanations for life on Earth.

The distinguished professor of zoology at Harvard University, whose 1,400-page book, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, has been 10 years in the writing, was intimately involved with the fight against creationist teaching during the 1970s and 1980s in the American Deep South.

The arguments have resurfaced in Britain after the news that a school in Gateshead has been teaching creationism alongside evolution, arguing both are equal valid viewpoints.

Creationists still use Professor Gould's theory of "punctuated equilibrium" – which argues for the sudden appearance of new species – to support their view that Darwinism is being challenged by some of the leading thinkers in biology.

Although Professor Gould never disputed the central tenet of Darwinism, natural selection, his explanation for how new species might rapidly arise is often presented by creationists as a direct challenge to the scientific orthodoxy at the heart of Darwinism.

Evangelical creationists in particular have argued the universally accepted gaps in the fossil record and the frequent absence of intermediate forms between fossilised species are evidence that evolution cannot fully account for the diversity of life on Earth.

They have used Professor Gould's theory – which proposes long periods of stable "equilibrium" punctuated by sudden changes that are not captured as fossils – as proof that Darwinist "gradualism" was wrong and it should therefore be taught, at the very minimum, alongside creationism in schools.

Stephen Layfield, a science teacher at Emmanuel College in Gateshead, which is at the centre of the row, used the lack of intermediate fossils between ancestral species and their descendants to question Darwinist evolution.

Professor Gould says creationists have unwittingly misinterpreted or deliberately misquoted his work in a manner that would otherwise be laughable, were it not for the impact it can have on the teaching of science in schools.

"Such inane and basically harmless perorations may boil the blood but creationist attempts to use punctuated equilibrium in their campaigns for suppressing the teaching of evolution raise genuine worries," Professor Gould said.

Fundamentalist teaching reached its height in the United States in the early 1920s and culminated in the famous Scopes "monkey" trial in Tennessee in 1925 when John Scopes, a biology teacher, was arrested for teaching evolution in contravention of state law.

A second creationist surge occurred in the US during the 1970s, which led to the "equal time" laws for the teaching of creationism and evolution in the state schools of Arkansas and Louisiana. The rule was overturned in two court cases in 1982 and 1987.

At the same time, Professor Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium was being debated among scientists. With the fellow Darwinist, Niles Eldredge, who cited the unchanging nature of Trilobite fossils in support of the idea, Professor Gould presented the theory at a scientific conference in 1971. A seminal scientific paper followed a year later.

"But I had no premonition about the hubbub that punctuated equilibrium would generate," Professor Gould said. Some "absurdly-hyped popular accounts" proclaimed the death of Darwinism, with punctuated equilibrium as the primary assassin, he says.

"Our theory became the public symbol and stalking horse for all debate within evolutionary theory. Moreover, since popular impression now falsely linked the supposed 'trouble' within evolutionary theory to the rise of creationism, some intemperate colleagues began to blame Eldredge and me for the growing strength of creationism.

"Thus, we stood falsely accused by some colleagues both for dishonestly exaggerating our theory to proclaim the death of Darwin (presumably for our own cynical quest for fame), and for unwittingly fostering the scourge of creationism as well," he said.

Not every scientist, however, would agree that Professor Gould was innocent in the dispute, which was exploited by evangelical creationists.

What was essentially an arcane argument between consenting academics soon became a public schism between Gould and his Darwinist rivals, whose position was best articulated by the Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins.

At its most simplistic, the idea of punctuated equilibrium was presented as an alternative to the "gradualism" of traditional Darwinism. Rather than species evolving gradually, mutation by mutation, over a long period of time, Professor Gould argued they arose within a period of tens of thousands rather than tens of millions of years – a blink of the eye in geological terms.

Professor Dawkins savaged the Gould-Eldredge idea, arguing gaps in the fossil record could be explained by evolutionary change occurring in a different place from where most fossils were found. In any case, Dawkins said, we would need an extraordinarily rich fossil record to track evolutionary change.

Gould and Eldredge could have made that point themselves, he said. "But no, instead they chose, especially in their later writings, in which they were eagerly followed by journalists, to sell their ideas as being radically opposed to Darwin's and opposed to the neo-Darwinian synthesis," Dawkins writes in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker.

"They did this by emphasising the 'gradualism' of the Darwinian view of evolution as opposed to the sudden 'jerky', sporadic 'punctuationism' of their own ... The fact is that, in the fullest and most serious sense, Eldredge and Gould are really just as gradualist as Darwin or any of his followers," Professor Dawkins wrote.

The subtleties of the dispute were, however, lost on commentators outside the rarefied field of evolutionary theory.

It was certainly lost on many creationists who just revelled in the vitriolic spat between the leading Darwinists. (The dispute was so vitriolic it became personal – in his book, Gould relegates his critics to a section titled "The Wages of Jealousy".)

Richard Fortey, the Collier Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Bristol University, says Professors Gould and Dawkins are closer than many people realise.

With some of Britain's leading scientists and theologians writing to the Prime Minister to voice their concerns about the teaching of creationism, the issue has come to the fore.

"It's absurd we are now facing this creationist threat," Professor Fortey said. "It's a debate that belongs to the 1840s. Evolution is not just a theory, it's as much of a fact as the existence of the solar system."


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-384 next last
yee-haw
1 posted on 04/09/2002 11:31:41 AM PDT by JediGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list;PatrickHenry;jennyp;RadioAstronomer;Junior
I know, two in one day, but it's really good!
2 posted on 04/09/2002 11:32:26 AM PDT by JediGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gore3000;medved;AndrewC
read up
3 posted on 04/09/2002 11:32:54 AM PDT by JediGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
It seems kinda funny that "creationists" would utilize the fossil record to advance that view,
but scoff at the geology that gives rise to it.
4 posted on 04/09/2002 11:36:24 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
Gould, and one other scientists who I can't remember the name of, were the originators of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which says that evolution may not have occurred in a smooth line of subtle changes, but in quantum-like leaps, with new species, or changes to a specie, happening within a generation. (This, of course, to explain the complete lack of intermediate changes in the fossil record.)

Now, anyone who's seen Stephen Jay Gould on some of the countless documentaries on the origin of species knows he's more than a bit of a pompous ass. His arrogance and cockiness prompted one scientist to refer to Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium as "evolution by jerks."

5 posted on 04/09/2002 11:37:41 AM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
Professor Gould says creationists have unwittingly misinterpreted or deliberately misquoted his work

Liars for Christ, I calls 'em.

6 posted on 04/09/2002 11:40:36 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
or changes to a specie, happening within a generation.

No. In genetically isolated regions over many generations.

7 posted on 04/09/2002 11:41:48 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
What I love is the raging battle between paleontologists and microbiologists (the originators of the "Eve" theory, using mitocondrian DNA, which maintains that every human being on earth comes form a single female about 50,000 years ago). The bone guys hate the microbiologists almost as much as they hate creationists. Of course, their hatred stems from a frustration that the microbiologists tend to tie the paleontologists in knots.

The thing about the rigid adherence to evolution is that all of these guys -- Gould included -- earned their doctorates and built their careers on the assumption that evolution is true. Their defense of evolution is less because of solid scientific evidence, and more because they're fighting for their lives to validate their entire professional careers. If evolution is false, these guys are the biggest fools in the world. This is why even scientific discoveries which throw doubt on evolution will always be explained away by the evolutionists.

8 posted on 04/09/2002 11:44:27 AM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Wrong.

Professor Gould's theory – which proposes long periods of stable "equilibrium" punctuated by sudden changes...

9 posted on 04/09/2002 11:46:02 AM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
You said:

"in quantum-like leaps, with new species, or changes to a specie, happening within a generation"

He said:

Gould argued they arose within a period of tens of thousands rather than tens of millions of years"

Wildly different, don't you think?

10 posted on 04/09/2002 11:46:34 AM PDT by Honcho Bongs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
"It's absurd we are now facing this creationist threat," Professor Fortey said. "It's a debate that belongs to the 1840s. Evolution is not just a theory, it's as much of a fact as the existence of the solar system."

And his great great great great great grandfather, Professor Fartey said, "It's absurd we are now facing this extemist threat...the idea that the world is flat is not just a theory, it's as much a fact as the existence of the sun."

11 posted on 04/09/2002 11:47:08 AM PDT by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
Cloaked. Lurking ...
12 posted on 04/09/2002 11:47:33 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
You flat earth young earth creationists just can't seem to get beyond arguing by analogy -- the foremost tool of the crank theorist.
13 posted on 04/09/2002 11:50:09 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
This is why even scientific discoveries which throw doubt on evolution will always be explained away by the evolutionists.

How much tinfoil can you buy with your two cents? Conspiracies everywhere, oh my!

14 posted on 04/09/2002 11:52:05 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Now, anyone who's seen Stephen Jay Gould on some of the countless documentaries on the origin of species knows he's more than a bit of a pompous ass....

That often seems to be the case when people of unusual intellect articulate their views. Actually, Gould is an extremely humorous writer and an avid baseball fan who uses baseball as analogy is many of his writings.

15 posted on 04/09/2002 11:52:59 AM PDT by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Honcho Bongs
You haven't refuted the assertion that Gould's theory is a convenient device to explain-away the lack of evidence in the fossil record for transitional forms. Gould doesn't know for sure; it's a way to prop up a sorry and tattered theory of origins.
16 posted on 04/09/2002 11:53:09 AM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
Thanks...another bookmark
17 posted on 04/09/2002 11:53:25 AM PDT by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
"Tin foil." Cute. Demeaning characterizations: final refuge of the intellectual hypocrite.
18 posted on 04/09/2002 11:55:05 AM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stanz
His love of baseball hardly redeems him. He's still a pompous ass.
19 posted on 04/09/2002 11:56:00 AM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
You gotta HAVE a theory before you can claim it's been hijacked... Gould and Eldredge don't even have a theory or at least they don't the more major parts of one. They leave whatever is causing these macroevolutionary steps amongst the little herds of "peripheral isolates" up to the reader's imagination.
20 posted on 04/09/2002 11:56:48 AM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
he's more than a bit of a pompous ass

Arrogance, while annoying, does not nullify Gould's work or theories.

21 posted on 04/09/2002 11:58:51 AM PDT by Scully
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Scientific theories can be wrong for decades. The Bible is wrong forever.
22 posted on 04/09/2002 11:58:53 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
A pompous ass who makes a lot of sense.
23 posted on 04/09/2002 11:59:11 AM PDT by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
There's a limerick about a man who dyed his whiskers green, then hid them behind a screen 'so that they could not be seen.' Twenty-some years after their spat first began, Gould and Dawkins both still need to explain what is the 'screen' hiding the fossil evidence for evolution. Maybe the reason we see no proof of evolution is because evolution didn't occur?

"Whatever happened to Occam's Razor?" is what the creationists are asking. And twenty-some years later, the best Gould and Dawkins can do is shout in unison: "Shut up!"

24 posted on 04/09/2002 11:59:17 AM PDT by JoeSchem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
This is largely an issue involving "cross-cutting relationships." As in geology. Not in people.
25 posted on 04/09/2002 12:00:35 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
. Their defense of evolution is less because of solid scientific evidence, and more because they're fighting for their lives to validate their entire professional careers.

Any evidence for this claim?

26 posted on 04/09/2002 12:00:49 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
The other guy was Niles Eldredge.
27 posted on 04/09/2002 12:02:55 PM PDT by Egregious Philbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stanz
Actually, Gould is an extremely humorous writer and an avid baseball fan
who uses baseball as analogy is many of his writings."

So it is true...
They did clone George Will

28 posted on 04/09/2002 12:04:03 PM PDT by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
The Bible is wrong forever.

You're in trouble now ! Consider the history of Thomas Paine...

29 posted on 04/09/2002 12:05:02 PM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
the originators of the "Eve" theory, using mitocondrian DNA, which maintains that every human being on earth comes form a single female about 50,000 years ago

I thought the number was more like 200,000 years ago. They figured this by numbers of generations. The funny part is that the Creationist believe that the early humans lived for hundreds of years in our current calander system. So if the creationist believe in any kind of science, then the 200,000 figure would get moved back to a couple of million years based on the long live spans of early generations.

30 posted on 04/09/2002 12:05:03 PM PDT by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
"You haven't refuted the assertion that Gould's theory is a convenient device to explain-away the lack of evidence in the fossil record for transitional forms. Gould doesn't know for sure; it's a way to prop up a sorry and tattered theory of origins."

The lack of a complete, end-to-end fossil record doesn't disprove Gould's theories. Fossil creation is rare enough. To expect transitional stages to be found for a particular species highlights a lack of comprehension of the scale of the times involved

Rather than search for things that refute that which you don't believe, shouldn't you find proof for the things you do believe?

31 posted on 04/09/2002 12:05:16 PM PDT by Honcho Bongs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
Gould is coming off as an atheist crank on a crusade. I like a lot of what Dawkins says except there is a place for G_d in my view of the universe. And evolutionary theory seems to have great holes in it. Great gaps in evolution.
32 posted on 04/09/2002 12:07:19 PM PDT by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Honcho Bongs
"The lack of a complete, end-to-end fossil record doesn't disprove Gould's theories.
Fossil creation is rare enough. To expect transitional stages to be found for a particular
species highlights a lack of comprehension of the scale of the times involved"

The saying that sums this up is:
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

33 posted on 04/09/2002 12:08:37 PM PDT by APBaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
It seems kinda funny that "creationists" would utilize the fossil record to advance that view, but scoff at the geology that gives rise to it.

Human beings are quite capable of holding two, mutually-exclusive, beliefs at the same time, and believing in both whole-heartedly.

34 posted on 04/09/2002 12:09:53 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
but in quantum-like leaps, with new species, or changes to a specie, happening within a generation.

Not quite. The changes would happen over several hundreds or thousands of years rather than hundreds of thousands or millions. There is no jump between species within a single generation mentioned anywhere in the theory.

35 posted on 04/09/2002 12:11:20 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Cloaked. Lurking ...

So when do you raise shields at charge phasers?

36 posted on 04/09/2002 12:13:14 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
"Punctuationists" say they read their theory from the fossil record. Actually, Gould originally claimed that their theory was derived from the theory of geographic speciation and concepts of group selection, so that they then "predicted" the discontinuous fossil record (one theory to prove another theory). Then they claimed the fossil record (which shows no intermediary forms) validated their "predictions" and therefore their theory.

Punctuated equilibrium is basically an attempt to down-play the lack of evidence in the fossils for phylogeny. It derives from a more "literal" reading of the fossil record.

So is punctuated equilibrium testable? Gould says that a series of fossils showing gradual development of an adaptation would refute punctuated equilibrium. This is a "no lose" situation that Gould has created here: if the fossils show systematic gaps, then the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution is "proven", but if the fossils show gradualism, then the standard neo-Darwinian model of evolution is proven. In other words, evolution itself is no longer falsifiable! Punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism are both now part of the evolutionists' grab-bag of conflicting theories as Gould now views punctuated equilibrium as an addition to evolutionary theory rather than an alternative.

In short: How to best explain away the gaps in the fossil record, without throwing doubt on the basic premise of evolution? The answer: "punctuated equilibrium." The whole exercise is intellectually dishonest, because it creates a loophole for a theory (evolution) in crisis without seriously questioning or testing the theory itself.

37 posted on 04/09/2002 12:13:21 PM PDT by My2Cents
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
at = and
38 posted on 04/09/2002 12:17:04 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: stanz
Actually, Gould is an extremely humorous writer and an avid baseball fan who uses baseball as analogy is many of his writings.

Gould is an engaging writer. However, he is also very prone to bending facts to suit his predestined conclusion, as I quickly realized while reading his Mismeasure of Man.

He is, quite simply, an avid partisan, and he makes good money at it. As such, his conclusions are not to be trusted at face value.

I don't limit this skepticism to Gould, BTW, he just happens to be the person we're talking about.

39 posted on 04/09/2002 12:18:26 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
Howdy

For doctor gould to presume to know of a certainty that evolution was not the means the Almighty used to create humanity and all living things is hubris on a grand scale.

In point of fact, for anyone to claim certainty as to the motive force behind creation, that individual must reach certitude in the absence of proof.

Belief in the absence of proof is religious faith, thus doctor gould is not practicing science, but religion, a faith based belief system in the nonexistence of God.

Truly perverse.

40 posted on 04/09/2002 12:24:56 PM PDT by MoscowMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Why does it matter how God created man? A miracle is a miracle.

When a child is born it is a miracle. In my view it doesn’t make it any less a miracle because we know something about the mechanics that allowed the child to be born. Is God eliminated because we know about DNA?

Is God less of a God because He used a gradual process of evolution rather than waving a magic wand and suddenly bringing man from nothingness?

41 posted on 04/09/2002 12:30:03 PM PDT by Calculus_of_Consent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
We don't share the same assessment of Gould's work. What led you to your conclusion that he shaped the evidence for his own benefit in "Mismeasure of Man."?
42 posted on 04/09/2002 12:33:49 PM PDT by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
For the real lowdown on Chuck Darwin, stupidest white man of all time, his BS theory, and the efforts of feebs like Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge to keep the charade alive for another generation:


43 posted on 04/09/2002 12:35:57 PM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
The thing about the rigid adherence to evolution is that all of these guys -- Gould included -- earned their doctorates and built their careers on the assumption that evolution is true. Their defense of evolution is less because of solid scientific evidence, and more because they're fighting for their lives to validate their entire professional careers. If evolution is false, these guys are the biggest fools in the world. This is why even scientific discoveries which throw doubt on evolution will always be explained away by the evolutionists.

Love your SN too.

44 posted on 04/09/2002 12:39:21 PM PDT by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl; biblewonk
Stephen Jay Gould, one of the great evolutionary biologists of our time High Priest of the Church Of Evolution
45 posted on 04/09/2002 12:39:39 PM PDT by newgeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MoscowMike
For doctor gould to presume to know of a certainty that evolution was not the means the Almighty used to create humanity and all living things is hubris on a grand scale. In point of fact, for anyone to claim certainty as to the motive force behind creation, that individual must reach certitude in the absence of proof. Belief in the absence of proof is religious faith, thus doctor gould is not practicing science, but religion, a faith based belief system in the nonexistence of God.

You are right in so many ways. What kills me is the creationists who refuse to allow for God to use whatever means possible to get to the point we are at today. They say evolution is blasphemy, when I say it is very arrogant to suppose how God works. Tell me, where did Cain's wife come from? He was expelled for killing his brother in one verse then the very next he has a wife. Where did she come from? Tell me of her people.

The people I don;t understand are the old earth creationists. They don't believe in the evolution of man, but do they believe in the evolution of other animals? I don;t think so. This point of view is the most disturbing. Do they think God just floats around with a wrist watch on and says, "OK T-Rex, it's your time to go" and then waves his magic wand and they all drop dead? Now it's time for the giant sloth to come into existence, waving the wand again. Poof, there are thousands of sloths spread out across an area.

I say that God can use any means possible, and it is pure arrogance to assume exactly what God is thinking.

P.S. If you are a Craetionist, I will not read your answer until you tell me where Cain's wife and her people come from.

46 posted on 04/09/2002 12:46:58 PM PDT by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: stanz; my2cents; biblewonk
A pompous ass who makes a lot of sense.
...to a fool:
47 posted on 04/09/2002 12:51:39 PM PDT by newgeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer;my2cents
2:tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which iscommitted to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and opposititions of science falsely so called:

Jer 2:27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth:

Evolution summed up in 2 little verses.

48 posted on 04/09/2002 12:56:01 PM PDT by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
I just don't worship scientists as god. They've got a pretty shady record. They are far from inerrant. The theory of evolution is something worth teaching and talking about. It is your side that wants to hush the critics, not my side. It is crazy to believe that science has all the answers about the beginning of life. hahahahaha!

You cannot scientifically explain a created object. You can, however, disprove much of the darwin theory. Science looks only for one type of answer. If the Bible is right and God created Adam, how old was Adam when God created him? Was he a grown man or an infant? It's the old "Which came first the chicken or the egg" argument. If you only allow for the possibility that it was the egg then you might as well not ask the question "Where and how did life begin." It is a false theory based on scientists own standards. You cannot eliminate possibilities before you even explore the question unless you are motivated by something other than finding the truth. Science will not even consider that the first man was created with "age", no matter how many of their aging theories fail. It really is a matter of faith either way you look at it.

Personally, I don't care what you believe. I am offended that darwinists are so religious in their beliefs that they won't even allow a debate. One side will debate, one side won't. Hmmm.

49 posted on 04/09/2002 12:58:24 PM PDT by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stanz
What led you to your conclusion that he shaped the evidence for his own benefit in "Mismeasure of Man."?

I'm afraid I can't give you exact details, as it's been years since I read it, and my dog literally ate the book. (That was the same week he also ate the covers off one of my statistics books. It's quite something to discover a gold-lettered pile in your yard....)

However, I do remember my basic objections to the book. His analysis pushed very hard the idea that there is no racial component to intelligence. Unfortunately, Gould did not address the idea that the same evolutionary factors that drive physical racial differences, might also affect intelligence (which under evolutionary theory is an evolved physical trait).

Rather, he "proved" his point by pointing out the flawed testing methodology of those who claimed that there are racial differences in intelligence.

While that is a valuable service, it does not answer the mail on the underlying evolutionary question of racial differences in intelligence.

Again, I'm sorry I can't discuss specifics.

50 posted on 04/09/2002 12:58:50 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-384 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson