> The problem is that creationists generally only read creationist books. I've
> met a few who were scientists (usually working in a non-biology field, but
> not always) and I've met a few who have read Gould and Dawkins. But
> generally they only read stuff that won't disturb their worldview.
What is even more sad is that both Gould and Dawkins are not among the
most important evolutionists, the ones that have contributed substantially
to evolutionary biology. Dawkins published some interesting papers in the
area of Behavioral Ecology in the late 70s, but nothing really
influential. Gould is a good paleontologist, contributed to the concepts
of Punct. Eq. and adaptation, but he probably published less than 10
papers over the last 10 years. They are both just good writers of "popular
science" books, but they have not contributed to evolutionary biology in
the way that G.G. Simpson, Ernst Mayr, E.O. Wilson, Dick Lewontin or G.C.
Williams did, and these authors are unknown to most creationists (except
for some eventual out-of-context citations that are repeated over and over
again).
Marcio