You just don't get it. You seek to make my statement illegitimate by using your little fallacious red herring accusation of "quote mining." But I was quoting noted evolutionist and paleontologist S. J. Gould as he summarized Darwin on this point. Do you understand what it means to summarize? Gould quoted Darwin accurately, and no one up to this point has ever accused Gould of "quote mining."

I took nothing out of context. Darwin said that the geological record would either buttress his position, or if later evidence did not show "interminable varieties" and "the finest graduated steps" between species, than it would be right and honest to reject his whole theory. Period, end of story, according to Darwin himself.

Now if you want to mutate the myth of evolution, as Gould later did with punctuated equilibria, that is another thing. But to say that the fossil record substantiates gradualism, is to reveal just how unclear you are on the concept. Mutating the theory does nothing to change the nature of the evidence.

In point of fact, gradualism is being snipped out of textbooks because, as Gould rightly said, evidence for it is just not in the rocks. The Burning Truth is in the rocks, and it is decidedly not in your favor.

It is not "quote mining" to quote a single passage of what a person says. To say that entire pages have to be reproduced to remain intellectually honest, in the kindest way I can put it, is just silly. No one ever does that, and if you think more context needs to be provided to further your point, then please do so, without resorting to cheap debating tricks.

As to "rejecting modern science," it is not modern science I reject, it is pseudoscience masquerading as true science.

True science is not arrived at by consensus. Consensus is for politics. A thing can be true, even if every scientist on the planet disagrees with it. Science is supposed to be about Truth, and as Paul Robeson says, "Truth is the universe as it really is."

Email