-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is Theistic Evolutionist an oxymoron?
- Thread starter Gold Dragon
- Start date
"My only purpose in quoting evolutionists writings was to show that many do not believe there is a fossil record.
The reason I said "confirmed" evolutionists is all these writers continue to believe in evolution despite this admitted problem.
I did not edit these comments."
First I want to ask a question which will be repeated at the end.
Do you think that your source accurately reflected Gould's opinion?
I did not suggest that YOU editted the comments. I do suggest that whoever you got the quotes from did not present them in the proper context. I assert that the meaning as presented is not the meaning as intended. If you quote someone as saying something other than what they meant, it is not an honest quote.
As an example, I will take the last of your quotes since it is a common one. Your quote was
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould; Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
Now. First off, let's put some of the context around the quote.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record.</font>[/QUOTE]Now if you pay careful attention, you will see an important distinction. It is subtle, but important.
What Gould is arguing against is not the fossil record. He is arguing against the idea that most evolutionary change is gradual. He opposes the idea of "gradualism." This is because most of the transitions we find are between higher levels of taxa and not at the species level. This is because the pace of change at the species level is so erratic, you are likely to find fossils from times when change was slow and to not find fossils from times when change was rapid. Some of the finely divided series that we do have often show this jerky and erratic pace of change.
This observation should give you no comfort. Notice, it is the short, quick changes between species that are lacking. We have very good records of change at higher levels such as new families and classes and orders. YEers often talk about only "microevolution" being possible. But the fossil record is long on macro changes and short on micro changes.
Finally, I wish to give another quote from Gould that better addresses his view on this topic and his outrage at the kinds of quotes you are passing along.
Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
You can read the whole thing here.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
The question for you then becomes, do you think that your source accurately reflected Gould's opinion?
The reason I said "confirmed" evolutionists is all these writers continue to believe in evolution despite this admitted problem.
I did not edit these comments."
First I want to ask a question which will be repeated at the end.
Do you think that your source accurately reflected Gould's opinion?
I did not suggest that YOU editted the comments. I do suggest that whoever you got the quotes from did not present them in the proper context. I assert that the meaning as presented is not the meaning as intended. If you quote someone as saying something other than what they meant, it is not an honest quote.
As an example, I will take the last of your quotes since it is a common one. Your quote was
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould; Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
Now. First off, let's put some of the context around the quote.
Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record.</font>[/QUOTE]Now if you pay careful attention, you will see an important distinction. It is subtle, but important.
What Gould is arguing against is not the fossil record. He is arguing against the idea that most evolutionary change is gradual. He opposes the idea of "gradualism." This is because most of the transitions we find are between higher levels of taxa and not at the species level. This is because the pace of change at the species level is so erratic, you are likely to find fossils from times when change was slow and to not find fossils from times when change was rapid. Some of the finely divided series that we do have often show this jerky and erratic pace of change.
This observation should give you no comfort. Notice, it is the short, quick changes between species that are lacking. We have very good records of change at higher levels such as new families and classes and orders. YEers often talk about only "microevolution" being possible. But the fossil record is long on macro changes and short on micro changes.
Finally, I wish to give another quote from Gould that better addresses his view on this topic and his outrage at the kinds of quotes you are passing along.
Emphasis added.Transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [snipped discussion of the reptile to mammal transition and a discussion of some of the human ancestors]
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
You can read the whole thing here.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
The question for you then becomes, do you think that your source accurately reflected Gould's opinion?