"Here, instead, are some other gems of wisdom from Dr. Wald, specifically addressing the question of spontaneous generation:"
He rejected spontaneous generation in the Pasteur sense; he used the term for a slow, gradual process that led to the formation of life on earth (abiogensis). Again, what he said in context:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote57
" Because he is a creationist does not discount his credentials or his writings. Let me add to some of his quotes:"
Sure it does, when the list is supposed to be evolutionists.
" Meaning…?"
Meaning who cares what someone working at the Atomic Energy Commission thinks about evolution.
" I believe the point behind that quote is that a Cambridge University physicist asserting the need for a Designer/Creator."
He's an ordained Anglican priest. He's a theistic evolutionist.
"Once again, the point would be to highlight the need for a Designer. I cannot help that you do not agree or that you feel he was wrong. Funny how being wrong about such things are excusable for those guys, but one misguided quote sends everyone into a feeding frenzy."
Raup was arguing for no such thing, nor did he show that a designer was needed. Why do you think that a quote out of context will make an evolutionist turn out to be really a creationist?
" Biology isn’t the only science dealing with the probability/impossibility of evolution."
But a physicist writing in 1925 does not have the training to make such a statement. It certainly isn't worth more than a biologist's opinion.
"It stands to reason that you will reject and distance yourself from him, but his quotes are still on record. It seems that, when you find quotes not taken out of context or misquoted or fabricated, you merely shift to attacking of the source and excusing the quotes and demonstrating why you personally do not accept them."
Koestler wasn't a scientist, he was a journalist and a fiction writer for most of his working life. His views are rejected by the vast majority of scientists, and have nothing to do with the TOE. Again, despite this, he still wasn't rejecting evolution, he was rejecting natural selection as the main engine of it. Instead, he favored neo-lamarckism. This quote WAS taken out of context, in that it was never a rejection of descent with modification.
Why does this list have a journalist/literary writer on it?
" They are not evolutionists because of the quotes. The quotes are because they are not evolutionist. (Huh?)"
No, Wolfgang Smith (and the other people I have designated creationists) was an avowed creationist. That is why I call them creationist, because that is what they said they were.
" Further quotes of interest by Dr. Smith:"
Who cares? He was a an avowed creationist. The list is supposed to be scientists who support evolution admitting that evolution is bunk. Having creationists on the list (and not naming them as such) is dishonest padding of the worst sort. Why not just post an article by Duane Gish?
" Dr. Hubert P. Yockey. Information theorist and non-biologist.
Where do you get off thinking that only biologists can critique evolution?"
He showed no understanding of basic biology. The calculations were based on totally bogus assumptions that have nothing to do with how life actually works. I was kind.
" How do you figure?"
The origin of life is outside the TOE. Also, he (Conklin) died before the modern work on abiogensis even started.
"Now you (again) are just showing your personal disagreement with the man based on your dislike of him or his quotes or his stance. Like it or not, he was once the president of “Academie des Sciences.”"
Who cares? His views have nothing to do with what 99% of scientists think about evolution. Neo-Lamarkism has been disproved. Again, it should be noted, he is not arguing against evolution or common descent, he is arguing against a particular theory of how this happened. He's not in your camp either.
"David Kitts (Professor of Science, University of Oklahoma) wrote:"
Another quote mine. Kitts was not arguing that the fossil record goes against darwinian evolution, only that in and of itself it is not enough. The paragraphs before this in his review was contrasting different theories about how evolution works, not if evolution happened.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-1.html#quote13
"The preservation of favored races, I wonder?"
You wonder incorrectly. Races in Darwin's sense meant varieties/sup-species. He was not talking about human races in the Origin Of Species. Also, at that time, race also was applied to nationailty, so people spoke of the Italian race or the Irish race.
"Many people have tried to ply Hitler’s invocation of “God” to ally him with Christians and demonize them. No action taken by Hitler is consistent with the Christian paradigm, and his actions were clearly influenced by the Darwinian ideas of races."
No, he saw the Aryan race as the perfect special creation of God. He did not believe that the Aryan race evolved. His idea of race had nothing to do with Darwin's. He also was only nominally Christian, as his use of Christian symbols was a perversion of real Christianity.
" Also note: I did not “include” it because I did not write or compile the list."
Your reposting it is an act of tacit approval.
"So we can excuse his views based on the era in which he lived, just like we excuse pro-slavery and pro-racist opinions because they were the fare of the time. (Huh?)"
No, but his views on women's capabilities were a tiny part of his writing and not in the least out of place in his time. They had nothing to do with his science but all to do with his being a typical Victorian male. BTW, as far as slavery goes, he was atypical in his hatred for the practice.
" Ahh, ad hominem tu quoque."
So, why do you excuse Morris' racism but condemn Darwin's and Huxley's (even though they lived in a time when it was more excusable)? Hypocrisy doesn't become you. My critique is not a fallacy because it hits straight to your point.
"You’d better slip that bit of information on down the line to the classroom teachers, because they recently tried to hand me recapitulation as fact too."
I doubt that. Embryology is useful to show evolutionary history but Haeckel applied it too far. The use of embryology as a support for evolution is not the same as ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
" Considering he is a creationist, I’m not sure why he would be classified as “evolutionist” under the list at all."
Me neither. Just like the other avowed creationists on the list, like:
"(Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University) He was last main holdout against evolution, and died in 1942. He was always a creationist. Yet MORE padding.
His opinions disagreed with evolution. He was a scientist. I think his quotes are useful."
He was an avowed creationist, like Gish (though he was more respected and actually did scientific research). There is no difference having him on this list or Gish. Neither represents the views of evolutionary scientists.
" He was a geologist writing in Volume 14 of Geology. Here’s the full context:"
Yes, he was arguing against social Darwinism and was not in any way arguing against the TOE.
" I believe the mix-up originates in the fact that he delivered a series of lectures at Princeton."
And, he was a creationist.
"Because he is affiliated with an institute which believes in Intelligent Design, we must immediately discard anything he says, because no person who believes in either ID or Creation can make any comment scientifically sound in nature. (Huh?) I agree, however, that he doesn’t belong under the heading of evolutionist."
Because he has always been openly hostile to the TOE. He does not speak for evolutionists and doesn't belong on the list because of that.
Thanks for taking the time for the reply. I apologize for snarkily implying you wouldn't.