Re: 1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS

Have you gotten the Bell book yet?  You recommended it, and I got it.
I have more questions for you about it.  When are _you_ going to get the
book _you_ recommended to me?

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, John Wilkins wrote:
david ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Lenny Flank wrote:
> > david ford:
> >
> > > > Eldredge, Niles.  July 1980.  "An Extravagance of Species"
> > > > _Natural History_, 47-51.  Paragraphs from 48, 50, and 51:
> > >
> > > Is this before, or after, Eldredge says that creationists are liars
> > > and poor scholars, and that creation "science" is bankrupt and
> > > dishonest.
> >
> > I am an old-earth creationist that rejects "creation science," which says
> > that the earth and universe is about 10,000 years old.
> > Do you consider me to be a liar?  If so, on what basis do you arrive at
> > that conclusion?
> > Do you consider me to be a poor scholar?  If so, on what basis do you
> > arrive at that conclusion?
>
> david, *I* don't consider you a liar, in fact I consider you to be an
> honest man in intent, but I do think you show poor scholarship.
>
> You cherrypick quotes without regard to context or the state of debates,
> you read only part of the source material without attempting to
> sympathetically understand the author's POV, and you seem to think that
> a lack of monolithy in the views of scientists in a discipline
> indicates, somehow, that the discipline is "in crisis".
>
> And yet, you never seem to respond when folk reply to you, at least not
> in any depth or even covering the entirety of how people have taken the
> trouble to reply. You never defend these interminable regurgiposts, and
> when challenged to back up the implications you are drawing out however
> poorly or tacitly, you won't do it.
>
> Now suppose I did the same thing for the Christian religion (or whatever
> POV you favour personally). Would you take my opinions thus expressed to
> be on a par with the leading theologians or specialists in that domain?
> I sure as hell wouldn't expect you to.
>
> So I think I am justified in claiming that your POV over evolution is
> bankrupt. I am not claiming that the *theological* doctrine of cretion
> is dishonest or bankrupt, but the snide attacks on "Neo-Darwinism"
> (which you refuse to define or elaborate) are. Sorry.