His questions were more than rhetorical. Darwin's characterization of the fossil record was essentially a vast continuum of micro changes over vast periods of time. Not sudden jumps followed by long periods stasis as described by Gould and Eldredge.
Darwin and the fossil hunters who followed believed they would prove the "continuum". They failed.
Didn't the idea of punctuated equilibrium go back to Darwin? I seem to recall that from one of these threads.
But even so, lets pretend Darwin never heard of PE and his theory was corrected by Gould and Eldredge. What would this matter to evolution? Science progresses by modifying theories as needed. Are you suggesting that if Darwin was wrong about one little thing that all of evolution just goes away?
(For the overall dispute between creation and evolution, the fine-tuning of the mechanism of evolution is not relevant. If anything, the theory will get stronger for the challenge.)
Now, I gotta get some work done. Bye.
Because PE better fits the fossil record. Of that I have no doubt. To many, Darwin's claim of what is essentially a continuum was not a "little thing". Gould and Eldredge obviously didn't think so.
I don't like dishonest science. If Gould and Eldredge were correct, then say so. Stop looking over your shoulders at what the "fundies" may think. In the long run it's a winner for science.
The astronomers did a better job handling the transition from the "Steady State" theory to the "Big Bang Theory" despite its Biblical implications, and the fundies ran wild with it. But so what?
Science must forge ahead with the scientific method regardless.
As the saying goes "damn the torpedos and full speed ahead".