S.J. Gould
> >"Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous changes
> >to the most profound structural transitions in the history of life: by a
long
> >series of insensibly graded intermediate steps, birds are linked to
reptiles,
> >fish with jaws to their jawless ancestors. Macroevolution (major
structural
> >transition) is nothing more than microevolution (flies in bottles)
extended.
> >If black moths can displace white moths in a century, then reptiles can
> >become birds in a few million years by the smooth and sequential
> >summation of countless changes. The shift of gene frequencies in local
> >populations is an adequate model for all evolutionary processes - or so
the
> >current orthodoxy states....The fossil record with its abrupt transitions
> >offers no support for gradual change...Yet the unnecessary link that
Darwin
> >forged became a central tenet of the synthetic theory." (Gould S.J., "The
> >Return of the Hopeful Monster", in "The Panda's Thumb", 1990, p156)
>
Susan
> After I read the above quote I realized it had been quite a long time
since
> I read that particular essay, so I got it out and re-read it. I know the
> chances are extremely slim that Stephen actually reads all the books he
> quotes. He picks up quotes here and there on the web and there are
> creationist books that are almost nothing but quotes. Creationists love to
> quote evolutionists out of context in order to make it seem that even
> evolutionists doubt evolution. That is, of course, not true. Deliberately
> creating such a false impression is considered lying in scientific circles
> and it's probably considered lying in most Christian circles. I was
shocked
> when I first found out about the lies. I assumed (why?) that the most
> conservative Christians (the ones most likely to be creationists) would be
> the ones most careful about scrupulous truthfulness. This has proved not
to
> be true.
>
> In the Gould quote above there are two sets of elipses indicating that
> material has been trimmed. The first set of elipses indicates a place
where
> Gould uses an illustration of his point and is perfectly acceptable. The
> second set of elipses hides something very interesting though.
>
> Stephen quotes:
> "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for
gradual
> change...Yet the unnecessary link that Darwin forged became a central
tenet
> of the synthetic theory."
>
> The original version reads "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions
> offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural
selection
> does not require it--selection can operate rapidly."
>
> As you can see the portion left out was brief, but it refutes what Stephen
> was saying. The missing verbage changes the meaning of the paragraph and
> reveals that Gould does *not* agree that variation and selection are
> controversial.
>
> "These tales, in the "just-so story" tradition of evolutionary natural
history,
> >do not prove anything. But the weight of these, and many similar cases,
> >wore down my faith in gradualism long ago. More inventive minds may yet
> >save it, but concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal
> >much to me." Gould S.J., "The Return of the Hopeful Monster", in "The
> >Panda's Thumb", 1990, p158)
>
> the above paragraph on p. 190 of *The Panda's Thumb* is a discussion of
> *gradualism* not variation and natural selection and is a lead-in to the
> material on p. 191.
>
> "But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as
Huxley
> pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in
> adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance
> with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable
> variant can spread through a pouplation in Darwinian fashion."
>
> Gould then goes on to list evidence in support of his supposition.
>
> If the evidence for ID is so vast and so well-founded in empirical
science,
> why lie? Why quote evolutionists in such a way that they seem to be saying
> something they are *not* saying? What's the point?
>
> I think the point is obvious. ID is propaganda, just as the quotes Stephen
> picks up here and there (I *don't* believe he's read all those books) are
> propaganda. Truth-value is secondary as long as doubt seems to be cast on
> evolution and Christian mythology seems to be science.
There's a moral here: If you want to read Stephen's posts, by all means do
so. Just remember that any evolutionist he quotes is probably being quoted
out of context or misquoted and is almost certainly being misrepresented.
Further, keep in mind that, even when he does not misrepresent the quotes in
the very process of quoting them, he *then* misrepresents what they say in
his own comments about them. This is most remarkable, since all the reader
has to do is re-read the quoted passage to see that Stephen is simply lying
or willfully stupid. I will elaborate on this in my post in response to the
post in which he has the gall to accuse me of an ad hominem argument for
calling him on his systematic misrepresentation the views of his opponents.