[Fatalis]

And where is the controversy being fought out? Not in the scientific journals and halls of academe. It's in school boardrooms and courthouses around the country. We have a political movement to damage science education without the consent of science. It's obvious what's going on.

It's fought on the margins on both sides. Gould often fancied himself a theologian. His adherence to evolution spilled over from scientific evidence into the realm of unimaginative hubris.

You fall into the hole he dug when you say "That's important because an intelligent designer wouldn't have to mimic evolution so precisely."

If evolution is scientific, it has nothing to say about God. Nor does it have to.

[Ichneumon]

You fall into the hole he dug when you say "That's important because an intelligent designer wouldn't have to mimic evolution so precisely."

You're missing his point. His point is that any conceivable evidence can (and has) been declared as consistent with an omnipotent Creator (since he/she/it might have just "felt like" making things that way), but that this line of argument is unparsimonious, *and* strongly begs the question of why the Creator seems to have chosen to make all life *look* like it's the product of evolution (if allegedly it is not).

Read this old post of mine for a lengthier treatment of the same point: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/902550/posts?page=984#984.

If evolution is scientific, it has nothing to say about God. Nor does it have to.

Nor does it, nor is he. He is making a point about epistemology, not evolution.