Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
Ah, so if one dies but doesn't believe there's life after death then there isn't, but if they die while believing there is life after death then there is?
Ummmm... makes perfect sense to me! :-)
(Did someone mention Peter Pan?)Her voice was so low that at first he could not make out what she said. Then he made it out. She was saying that she thought she could get well again if children believed in fairies.
Peter flung out his arms. There were no children there, and it was night time; but he addressed all who might be dreaming of the Neverland, and who were therefore nearer to him than you think: boys and girls in their nighties, and naked papooses in their baskets hung from trees.
"Do you believe?" he cried.
Tink sat up in bed almost briskly to listen to her fate.
She fancied she heard answers in the affirmative, and then again she wasn't sure.
"What do you think?" she asked Peter.
"If you believe," he shouted to them, "clap your hands; don't let Tink die."
Many clapped.
Some didn't.
A few beasts hissed.
The clapping stopped suddenly; as if countless mothers had rushed to their nurseries to see what on earth was happening; but already Tink was saved. First her voice grew strong, then she popped out of bed, then she was flashing through the room more merry and impudent than ever. She never thought of thanking those who believed, but she would have like to get at the ones who had hissed.
Peter Pan, chapter 13
Darwin did not think this, and neither did any significant number of his professional followers, at any time.
I hated it for the same reason: in that book he engaged in more than a little a priori assuming himself.
Specifically, the primary intent of the book was to debunk the means by which people meaasured "intelligence differences" between races. It was useful for debunking those particular tests; however, Gould's clear intent was for us to conclude that there were no intelligence differences at all.
The problem is that in order to be able to say this, one must also say that the evolutionary adaptations that produced distinct and measurable physical differences between races, could not extend to intelligence, despite the fact that he considered intelligence to be an evolved characteristic. This is clearly a flawed assumption -- there are obvious trades between, say, intelligence and speed, or eyesight, or even just the ease of gathering food.
Gould was a highly political animal, and it often showed up in his scientific writings.
Oh hardly...
Here, then, is our orthodox neo-Darwinian picture of how a typical species is 'born', by divergence from an ancestral species. We start with the ancestral species, a large population of rather uniform, mutually interbreeding animals, spread over a large land mass. They could be any sort of animal, but let's carry on the thinking of shrews. The landmass is cut in two by a mountain range. [A small population of shrews somehow make it to the other side, and create a new isolated population that gradually diverges from the ancestral population. Eventually the two races of shrew become two species. If the second population were to migrate back to the ancestral homeland, they wouldn't be able to interbreed with the first.][T]he likelihood is that the two species would not coexist for very long. ... It is a widely accepted principle of ecology that two species with the same way of life will not coexist for long in one place, because they will compete and one or other will be driven extinct. ... If it happened to be the original, ancestral species that was driven extinct, we should say that it had been replaced by the new, immigrant species.
The theory of speciation resulting from initial geographical separation has long been a cornerstone of mainstream, orthodox neo-Darwinism, and it is still accepted on all sides as the main process by which new species come into existence (some people think there are others as well). Its incorporation into modern Darwinism was largely due to the influence of the distinguished zoologist Ernst Mayr. [The punctuationists asked themselves:] Given that, like most neo-Darwinians, we accept the orthodox theory that speciation starts with geographical isolation, what should we expect to see in the fossil record?
... The 'gaps', far from being annoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively expect, if we take seriously our orthodox neo-Darwinian theory of speciation. ... [W]hen we look at a series of fossils from any one place, we are probably not looking at an evolutionary event at all: we are looking at a migrational event....
The point that Eldredge and Gould were making, then, could have been modestly presented as a helpful rescuing of Darwin and his successors from what had seemed to them an awkward difficulty. Indeed that is, at least in part, how it was presented - initially. ...
Eldredge and Gould could have said:
Darwin, when you said that the fossil record was imperfect, you were understating it. Not only is it imperfect, there are good reasons for expecting it to be particularly imperfect just when it gets interesting, just when evolutionary change is taking place; this is partly because evolution usually occurred in a different place from where we find most of our fossils; and it is partly because, even if we are fortunate enough to dig in one of the small outlying areas where most evolutionary change went on, that evolutionary change (though still gradual) occupies such a short time that we should need an extra rich fossil record in order to track it!But no, instead they chose, especially in their later writings in which they were eagerly followed by journalists, to sell their ideas as being radically opposed to Darwin's and opposed to the neo-Darwinian view of evolution ....
... The proper way to characterize the beliefs of punctuationists is: 'gradualistic, but with long periods of "stasis" (evolutionary stagnation) punctuating brief episodes of rapid gradual change'. The emphasis is then thrown onto the long periods of stasis as being the previously overlooked phenomenon that really needs explaining. It is the emphasis on stasis that is the punctuationists' real contribution, not their claimed opposition to gradualism, for they are truly as gradualist as anybody else.
Even the emphasis on stasis can be found, in less-exaggerated form, in Mayr's theory of speciation. [Mayer believed that large populations have more inertia, in a sense, against change than small populations.]
The proponents of punctuated equilibrium took this suggestion of Mayr, and exaggerated it into a strong belief that 'stasis', or lack of evolutionary change, is the norm for a species. They believe that there are genetic forces in large populations that actively resist evolutionary change ... [This question - whether or not there really are active forces for stasis - is where the controversies do lie within neo-Darwinism; but creationists try to paint these minor controversies as evidence of a crumbling ideology.]
-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996 edition, pp238-252
I do not know that if Gould was an atheist or not but he was promoting a lie about the creation of the earth. I have to say that he was a genius, for when he saw that gradual evolution wasn't the answer, he came up with an alternative theory, punctuated evolution. Even so, his theory has not been proven yet, so it only remains a postulate. I believe in the "punctuated" postuate of Creation, that God created the universe out of nothing in the space six 24-hour days, by the word of his power, and all very good. I also like his statement about genius, the ability to see across manu fields and to make connections between them.
What was this "lie" about the creation of the Earth that Gould promoted?
Punctuated Equilibrium is not an alternative to evolution, rather it is complimentary. While gradualism is displayed in the fossil record, there is a relative dearth of "transitionals" in the fossil record. This does not mean there are no transitionals — there are — it simply means that transitionals are not as common as they should be. Punctuated Equilibrium postulates that in some cases evolution takes place rapidly in a few thousand generations rather than a few tens- or hundreds-of-thousands of generations. Because the former time frames are geologically relatively short the chances of the transition being recorded in the fossil record becomes increasingly small.
As for "proving" evolution, in science theories are never proven. They either explain the evidence or they are discarded. Evolution does wonders for explaining the fossil record and is supported by a preponderance of the evidence available.
What proof is there of God creating the Earth and all therein during one extremely hectic week? Geologists were the first to dispute a recent creation beginning in the 18th century when they actually started systematically and accurately dating rocks. Biologists started questioning the whole setup in the 19th century when they began studying the fossils of prehistoric critters and realized they were far too old to be accounted for in a recent creation. Astronomers followed later in the 19th century as measurements to the stars became more refined and accurate. Finally, physicists joined the band wagon when they determined that it was possible the Sun had been burning for more than a few hundred million years. So, you can see, it is not merely evolutionary biologists that have presented evidence against God's zapping it all into existence in six 24-hour days; indeed every scientific discipline has had a hand in burying that ancient belief.
Ahhh Ted, witty and charming as always. Shouldn't you be in talk.origins getting shot down, like in this thread? Some people never learn...
No, when the fossil evidence started eroding his beloved theory of evolution, he MADE UP an explanation for the gaps in the fossil record. He didn't KNOW the truth...what he practiced was wishful thinking.
Jesus never ever claimed he came to save ALL of us, just those he chose to. Gould doesn't seem to have been chosen.
I liked Gould, but "Mismeasure" was by far his weakest work, IMO...
Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Evolutionists are Christ-deniers as Jesus Himself did not believe in evolution or other such modern fables.
Gould and another geneticist (Lewontin, I believe) were the key drivers of "punctuated evolution." Both men were much disliked by fellow evolutionists because of their haughty attitudes. Hence, their theory became known among the fraternity as 'evolution by jerks.'"
Unfortunately if he did not accept Christ as personal Savior, he will have niether mercy nor peace. :-(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.