[VadeRetro]

I think he is saying exactly what he is saying, why make his words jump through hoops?

Let facts be submitted to a candid world!

The Gould quote:

“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know,” writes Gould, “but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science” (Gould, 1983).

The ventana paraphrase (1):

Again, not even Gould is willing to accept evolution "sola scriptura" as immutable truth instead of theory--he says he can construct experiments to disprove any evolutionary theory he knows!

(Bah!)

The ventana paraphrase (2):

He is saying (to me) that there are holes in the theory (gaps in the record), and while he believes in the theory, owing to (as you and he see) "a preponderance of the evidence", he is at least willing to imagine observations or experiments that rely on those holes to potentially disprove the theory.

Are you allowed your own definition of "is?"

The VadeRetro paraphrase:

He's simply talking about which theory has real information content and is subject to disproof by evidence that contradicts what the theory says. The actual information content of "Well, God could have done it that way" is very low. The statement works equally well against any conceivable "that way." It isn't testable, falsifiable, or scientific. That's what Gould is talking about.

Why is this right? Let's go back to the original.

“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know,” writes Gould . . .

"Can envision" does not mean "am already aware of." Gould is not aware of data that actually falsifies evolution or he would not be the evolutionary theorist he is.

“. . . but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science” (Gould, 1983).

This addendum looks rather odd in light of your interpretation of the first part. The only sense you could make of it is he's rather enviously sniping at creationism for not having been falsified already as you say he thinks evolution has. (Creationism being totally immune to falsification).

It makes perfect sense my way. He said in the first part that evolution tells you enough about the real world that real-world observations could falsify it. Now it's time to compare and contrast. Creationism does not and can never tell you anything about what to expect in the future. God might have left it any way you could ever possibly find it.

[ventana]

I am sure we are both getting tired of this. I am going to stand fast on the premise that one of our most popular and broadly published scientific popularlists is capable of constructing a simple sentence in simple words that in fact means precisely what it says and nothing more. He does not require you to speak for him. Is it so hard for you to accept that a scientist will dare to question? How would science progress under your dogmatic refusal to test accepted theories? Or to imagine a noted scientist doing same.

I submit that it is you, sir, who is trying to redefine "is"

And now, if we are both comfortable with our own closing statements, I suggest we call a truce.