Posted on 04/09/2002 11:31:41 AM PDT by JediGirl
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."
If you think God and Evolution are compatible, you believe God is a liar. His word says, "...each according to its kind" (see Genesis 1:24-25).
See also reply #48 in this thread.
If you are a 6K year old universe person that is trying to explain away the fossil record, please answer me this. If the Earth is only 6,000 years old, find me a fossilized Rottweiller, Great Dane, Bull Dog, Pug, etc... Dogs are a perfect example. I'm not talking about micro/macro evolution, I'm talking about fossil records. Because man bread the hundreds(thousands?) of different varieties of dogs within the past 2 thousand years, where are all of those breads in the fossil records? Since some of those breads have existed for 1/3 of the total age of the universe there should be some found under layers upon layers of sediment. I've never heard of a single one.
If the shoe fits, ... maybe you and Gould can agree to share it.
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.
Ahh, so you would have been the first in line to kill Copernicus and Galileo.
Do I believe God created all things in the Universe? Yes. Do I beleive he did it in the exact same way you believe? No.
You wish. Give some examples and explain how they *falsify* the theory of natural selection (which is not the same thing as saying we don't have enough data in some particlar case)
While you're at it, can you think of any observation that could falsify creationism/ID?
Not really. The long life spans are all accounted for. The Jews were more avid in Christ's time about knowing their ancestry than the Mormons are today. Each ancester was accounted for, and their ages known at the birth of each child. So, for the entire list of Christ's ancestors - all the way back to Adam, all you have to do is look in the New Testament. Then, do some research about their ages at the birth of the specific child, and add up the ages - birth to specific child, not birth to death - and you have the age of the earth, if you go back to Adam.
I've never done it, because it takes a bit of research to get it done (I don't think it's all listed in the Bible), but that's the method.
I'm basically in agreement
Further proof that creationists think it's okay to lie to make a point...liars for Christ, indeed...
No apology needed, I took no offense. As a matter of fact, it was and is very nice to hear another who shares my view.
It seems to be the only rational, honest, self consistent position. If one chooses to believe in the existence of God, if one has faith, what else of import is there? Needing proof, or presuming to apprehend the infinite, is entirely inconsistent with religious faith.
As a person employed in engineering, applied science as it were, I enjoy tremendously the endless fascination of the exploration of the natural world. Perhaps one day a scientist will actually find the creator staring back at him or her, such a day that would be! I just dont try to inject transcendental meaning to physical studies, it is a meaningless debate.
All of the posturing of the goulds and creationists of the world are as uncomprehending apes before the infinite, both sides presume knowledge they can not possiby have but through faith.
The creationists have faith in God, but exceed the boundries of human knowledge and presume to know through what means God brought creation into being. Honest, but not self consistent.
The goulds of he world, however, are even more laughably luxuriant in their simian ignorance, for they can not even countenance their non belief in God as religious faith, thus failing both self consistency and integrity.
Is your belief and understanding of God based on the bible?
Oh, you mean flashing!
Yes, in reading that passage in context, it says that God created different varieties of animals. And that tells me what about evoloution?
Genisis 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
To me this verse tells me that God designed what animals to populate the earth with. I simply disagree with you on the process by which he made the waters teem with life.
Creationism employs strategies outside the scientific method that do not unify to it, which, if implemented to facilitate technology, would probably not even have yet arrived at the abacus. Nor would nuclear weapons, or anything else work within such a framework. That's the neat thing about a true "theory", which is amenable to being adjsuted, tweaked or even discarded as information not previously realized is acquired.
Yes, for the most part, I think I do...absent any other disqualifying information...which even itself may be fundamental, as in matter, energy and the information that relates them.
Is your belief and understanding of God based on the bible?
You havn't answered my question to any and all 6K year old universe Craetionist. Where did Cain's wife come from in Genisis 4:17? And what of the origins of her people? You wrap that up in a nice bow and I'll think about changing my already strong belief in God into another form of Strong belief in God.
What a racist idea. Sounds like you think black folks are less intelligent than white folks...Or maybe I am misreading you and perhaps you think Asians and East Indians are more intelligent than "white" people...
Please elaborate on your thinking on this subject.
This tells me you don't know anything about punk eek, nor did you read the article. The article explained it correctly:
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.
(This, of course, to explain the complete lack of intermediate changes in the fossil record.)
Yeah, a complete lack of intermediates. <ahem> a complete lack of intermediates. <cough> I said a complete lack of intermediates!!!
I give up. Help me out here. Can you give us some examples of this "complete lack of intermediate changes in the fossil record"?
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.