Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: The Keebler Chronicles (3 of 7)
Message-ID: <937@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 16:03:58 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.937
Posted: Fri Apr 19 16:03:58 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 01:26:28 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 85


>>> [Ernest Hua / Keebler]
>>> In fact, when are you going to provide a clear description of the theory
>>> of special creation?!  It seems that creationists have avoided that to
>>> give themselves the ability to be vague and self-contradicting.
>>
>> [Larry Bickford]
>> To the latter - hardly. Anything a creationist says is immediately
>> twisted by the evolutionists.

> Try the contrary ...  Here is a quick example:

> Steven Jay Gould once published an essay entitled "Evolution as a
> Fact and a Theory".  I have seen several articles by creationist
> deliberately twisting the direction of the essay.

This is especially interesting/ironic because one of the topics of the
article is precisely such twisting of other of his essays.

> One does this
> blatantly by stating that title and then saying something to the
> effect of "... well, when are they going to make up their minds?
> Is it a fact or a theory?  ..."  This is an obvious example of
> deliberate misquotation and gross misinterpretation.  The comment
> was in a set of three pamphlets written by an Austrailian (or New
> Zealand, I forget which) minister who supposedly gave up a "pro-
> mising career in organic chemistry to spread the word about the
> ONE who called to him."  Hardly a reliable scientist.

This is certainly an unfortunate incident.  In your own phrasing,
however, one bad apple doesn't account for the whole population.  But,
just so we have something to talk about, I'll go you one better...I
will demonstrate that Gould twists his *own* words.

First, we have:
Stephen Jay Gould, "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?"
Paleobiology, 6(1), 1980, 119-130.

"Richard Goldschmidt was castigated for his defense of punctuational
speciation ... We do not now accept all his arguments about the nature
of variation, but his explicit anti-extrapolationist statement is the
epitome and foundation of emerging views on speciation discussed in
this section."  Among which, as you might guess, is Gould's own view of
punctuated equilibrium.

This is what Gould says when he wants to argue against other
evolutionists.  But when he wants to argue against creationists, he
says, discussing how creationists have distorted his (and
Goldschmidt's) views:

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory".  In, _Science and
Creationism_, ed. Ashley Montagu, Oxford University Press, 1984,
117-125.

"I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but
Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated
equilibrium" [p124].

I'm not sure that we would have guessed that from the previous quote.
It is difficult to see how something can be the epitome and foundation
of one's views while at the same time it has nothing to do with them.

---

Note that Gould's inconsistencies necessitate a certain amount of
hoop-jumping when loyalists like Godfrey attempt to defend him
against the wiles of those crafty creationists.  (E.g., Laurie R
Godfrey, "Creationism and Gaps in the Fossil Record".  In, Laurie R
Godfrey, _Scientists Confront Creationism_, W W Norton and Co., New
York, 1983, 193-218.)

I once remarked that I have little sympathy for Gould's complaints
about the distortions of his work.  I certainly have no wish to defend
willful ignorance on the part of creationists, but, as I have already
observed elsewhere, part of the blame must be laid upon Gould himself.
He is sometimes inconsistent, and on points fundamental to his
position.  Because of this it sometimes becomes difficult to know or
understand just what he is saying.  As a consequence, accurate
representation of his views becomes difficult or impossible, as does
meaningful response to them.
-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"Danger signs, a creeping independence"                             |