An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.Well, I found a bit more of the quotation:
Although still a minority, an increasing number of scientists, most particularly, a growing number of evolutionists, particularly academic philosophers, argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all."I still have not found the last part that was deleted.
It is interesting that every source but one on the web has the shortened quotation. It looks like creationists don't want those hidden sections revealed. The only source that had what I added above was a court case in which part of that quotation was included as part of a question.
You might check out the author's testimony in McLean v. Arkansas (Testimony of Dr. Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph, Ontario Canada). A couple of passages are quoted below:
Q In your book, The Philosophy of Biology, you state that the modern synthesis theory of evolution is true beyond a reasonable doubt, do you not?A: Right.
Q And you further state that the falsity of its rivals is beyond a reasonable doubt?
A: Right.
Q Is not the so-called punctuated equilibrium theory a rival to some degree to the modern synthesis theory?
A: I'm not sure that it's a rival in the sense that I was talking about it in the book, quite honestly. I dealt with a number of alternatives, and punctuated equilibrium theory certainly wasn't one of those which was there to be considered when the book was written.
What I was saying was things like the original Lamarckism, you know, are false beyond a reasonable doubt. It certainly holds to that.
What I also said was that the importance of selection, mutation, so on, are true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Q Again, to my question, is not the punctuated equilibrium theory a rival, contrasting to the modern synthesis theory which you think has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
A: Well, that's a nice point. I think some people would think of it as such. I don't personally think of it as such, and I'm glad to find that a lot of evolutionists like Ayala doesn't think of it as such.
Q Others do, do they not?
A: Well, quite often I think some of the people who put it up like to think of it as a rival. But, you know, we're still- I mean, the punctuated equilibria theory is a very new theory. We're still working on the sort of conceptual links between it and the original theory. And I think it's going to take us awhile yet to decide whether we are dealing with rivals or complements or whatever.
But of course, let me add that in no sense does this at any point throw any doubt upon evolution itself. We are talking just about causes.
Looks like the author you cited is not as much against evolution as your quotation made it sound.
Well by golly you’ve managed to show that just one of the numerous folks metnioned isn’t totally against the idea, yet still has doubts- phew- I guess that nullifies all the other’s doubts then- and I had read his ‘testimony’ before, and couldn’t for the life of me see how it undermined his uncertainty.
By the way 49% is still a minority but a significant minorty, so what’s your point? That there isn’t a ‘growing number’ of scientists? or thaT perhaps their voice isn’t valid because they aren’t in the over 51%? or that their facts and evidenbces don’t have any validity because they aren’t majority? And the one case that you zero in on and point out that he isn’t 100% undoes all the other cases listed how? If that one case refutes the ‘growing number of scientsits who are dissatisfied with trhe evolution model’, then please- do point out how- this aught to be an interesting excusrsion into the minutia of diversionary tactics.