No exhaustive efforts are required. Just use the Google searach term:
"the Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance" -gilder
Every reference to the quote comes from Gilder. Every reference except for RussP's references.
Do you (in this context) equate endorsement with support?
Laughlin's quote does not endorse ID. Gilder uses (abuses) Laughlin's quote to support ID.
Oh, good. A misapprehension entirely of my fault, Im sure. I was under the impression there was a veritable Google sea of misapplied quotes of Dr. Laughlins out there, much like the wave after wave of broomsticks carrying buckets of water in The Sorcerers Apprentice, each one (the quotes, not the broomsticks) requiring analysis of the context in which it was used, to determine whether or not it was a genuine instance of being out-of-context.
Speaking of which:
Laughlin's quote does not endorse ID. Gilder uses (abuses) Laughlin's quote to support ID.
Non-responsive, Sir. I asked, Do you (in this context) equate endorsement with support? Just in case there is any confusion, that question was a request for clarification. Repeating an assertion does not clarify. It may well be that it fits your purpose to remain suitably vague. That is your prerogative, and that is fine. In either case I shall have had my answer.
Neither have you thrown any light on why you cite the use of Laughlin quotes on Google, which you condemn as abusive, but then explicitly exempt RussPs use of the quote from that general category. If RussP is exempt, why are these other quotes included in your discussion with him?
Now it develops in your last message that the use of the quote you cite as being abusive comes not from all of Googleland but from but one person (Gilder). So, is it merely Gilder v RussP? Was there a wider context, which youve now chosen to narrow? As before, it is your prerogative to answer, just as it is my prerogative to raise these troublesome issues.