Replies

"I think that Gould is of the belief that Darwin's theory (of many small minor changes over time) is not correct. But that evolution does occur in much larger jumps. I seem to recall something about his "hopefull monster" theory that somehow a very different type of critter ("monster") hatches and that is how/why we see such big changes in the fossil record."

You are mistaken. Gould believed that speciation took tens of thousands of years, not that one organism gives birth to a new species. No scientist believes in the *hopeful monster* claim.

Thanks for making me brush up on it. You're right - he doesn't call it the "hopeful monster" - he calls it punctuated equilibrium. But still saying Darwin's theory of slow gradual incremental change was not coorect. Here's from an article he wrote found www.stephenjgould.org:

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record.

The entire article is very good. I am being very selective to be brief, but found the following interesting:

I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad. Sad for many reasons. Sad because so many people who respond to creationist appeals are troubled for the right reason, but venting their anger at the wrong target.

It is true that scientists have often been dogmatic and elitist. It is true that we have often allowed the white-coated, advertising image to represent us—"Scientists say that Brand X cures bunions ten times faster than…" We have not fought it adequately because we derive benefits from appearing as a new priesthood.

It is also true that faceless and bureaucratic state power intrudes more and more into our lives and removes choices that should belong to individuals and communities. I can understand that school curricula, imposed from above and without local input, might be seen as one more insult on all these grounds. ......

But the culprit is not, and cannot be, evolution or any other fact of the natural world. Identify and fight our legitimate enemies by all means, but we are not among them.

...... Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part.

But we should borrow another metaphor and recognize that we too have to tread a straight and narrow path, surrounded by roads to perdition. For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.

You are mistaken. Gould believed that speciation took tens of thousands of years, not that one organism gives birth to a new species. No scientist believes in the *hopeful monster* claim.

I think he speculated 50,000 years or so.

He did discuss the "hopeful monster theory" in one of his books though. But he rejected it.