Contorted Logic

Type 'B' Creationists relentlessly present to the public an endless supply of contorted logic in the guise of reasonable thinking. In fact, these sorts of statements are a blind refutation of anything resembling science and contain illogical statements that deserve to be preserved forever in the Hall of the Infamy.

Here is an example of such illogic that in reality should deserve to be ignored as the rantings of a lunitic. This is shamelessly discussed in the web site of Robert Meyer at:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3623.html

"Stehen J. Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments. He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."

This idea was hardly original, it was strangely reminiscent of an older tale, known as the "hopeful monsters" theory. Not in the sense that the hypotheses of Gould and Goldschimdt were identical, but in that each wanted to hold onto evolutionary theory in the face of few transitional forms to confirm classic Darwinism. If the processes were distinctly different, the motivations were similar. Here we see a transition of Evolution as not merely a theory of origin, but crowned as a philosophy and system of thought. Gould claimed that evolution was not a gradual process, but occurred in rapid spurts with long periods of changeless plateaus in-between. This clever idea inoculated evolution from refutation by bringing it in harmony with the existing fossil record. One wonders if Gould might have tried to castle out of check (an illegal move) when he played chess.

This sort of illusionism reminds me of the stereotypical carnival game vender. He has spent the better part of the evening bilking some local yokel out of half his paycheck -- the guy who was merely trying to win the big teddy bear for his girl. This huckster had been cleaning house with his "ball under the cup," "hand is quicker than the eye" racket, until some mysterious stranger came out of the crowd and told us how the scam operated. It seems the ball was never under any of the cups at all, but was cleverly swept into a pants pocket when everyone was distracted. Gould's theory is pure genius for someone already looking for a hook to hang their hat on."

"Stephen J. Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments. He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution."

Yes, Gould was a neo-Darwinian and he argued that Darwin's ideas could not explain comletely the numerous fossil gaps seen in the fossil record. But in NO WAY did he "know" that "the absence of transitional forms threatened to discredit traditional evolution." That is a fabrication addendum of the worst sort by logic twister Robert Meyer. Gould never said anything of the sort. Meyer is desperately trying to discredit evolution, not Gould. So he, in the same paragraph says "He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution." Anyone of any degree of intelligence should see through this transparent façade. Robert Meyer is using deceit to link Gould with "discredit traditional evolution."

"Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium." ...so says Robert Meyer. By misinformation and false innuendos, Robert Meyer (a type 'B' crteationist) is a LIAR. Gould never said existance is meaningless. Meyer attempts to link "meaningless existence" with "punctuated equilibrium." Again this is a transparent façade wrapped in a cloak of piety and behind it is Meyer's oh so ultimate knowledge of the mind of God far beyond which any of you, who are the victims of science and live a "meaningless life", could possibly share.

In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." This is the same worn out argument by type 'B' creationists that evolution cannot be "proven." To say that evolution cannot be tested much less proven displays ignorance that is beyond the pale. There is no such thing as "THE Theory of Evolution." There is a field of science called Evolutionary Biology. Within that field of study are a number of theories, some of which have been tested and were falsified by the evidence(spontaneous generation, blending inheritance, pangenesis, essentialism, finalism, saltationism, mutationism, neutralism, soft inheritance and inheritance of aquired characteristics). Evolutionary Biology also contains a number of theories that have been supported by the evidence (natural selection, evolution by common descent, variability, extinction, allopatric speciation, adaptive radiation and punctuated equilibrium).

It shoud also be emphasized that scientists are not out to "PROVE" any of their hypotheses or theories. Again "prove" is a misleading use of the word to confuse the ignorant and mentally challanged. Scientists are not out to prove anything. The nature of science is to simply gather observations and see if their hypotheses or theories are tentatively suppprted or rejected by the evidence. Type 'B' creationists are always out to "prove" their beliefs. Creationists of this sort have no hypothesis or theory of their own to test, just bombastic statements based on their own biased interpretations of Biblical passeges because they know the mind of God better than anyone else.

This idea (punctuated equilibrium) was hardly original, it was strangely reminiscent of an older tale, known as the "hopeful monsters" theory. This is clear evidence that Robert Meyer is writing from a platform of sheer ignorance (or simply lying). Gould's punctuated equibrium and Richard Goldschmidt's"hopeful monsters" are very different. Not even the rapidity of the evolution of new species is even close with regard to the time it takes to form a new species from an established parental one. Goldschmidt believed the "hopeful monster" would come about in a single generation (saltation). Gould's punctuated equilibrium is an explanation of the "sudden" appearance of new species involving many generations.... but by entirely different mechanisms from that of Goldschmidt. Again Robert Meyer is clever about deceiving the ignorant but falls short in supporting his arguments with any testable valid evidence. He is an example of the blind liar leading the blind (or worse).

Not in the sense that the hypotheses of Gould and Goldschimdt were identical (an understatement), but in that each wanted to hold onto evolutionary theory in the face of few transitional forms to confirm classic Darwinism. This adds stupidity to ignorance. Neither Goldschmidt or Gould held to the original concepts of Darwin of gradualism (gradual speciation by natural selection). Goldschmidt rejected Darwin's gradualism outright, but Gould attempted to ADD the theory of punctuated equilibrium to that of Darwin's ideas.

Gould claimed that evolution was not a gradual process, but occurred in rapid spurts with long periods of changeless plateaus in-between. This clever idea inoculated evolution from refutation by bringing it in harmony with the existing fossil record. One wonders if Gould might have tried to castle out of check (an illegal move) when he played chess. A thoroughly rediculous non sequitur that has NOTHING to do with Gould's theories.

But Gould may have been half too clever to cover his own tracks. If environmental changes are the catalyst moving the evolutionary process (species adapting to a gradually changing environment), how can Gould account for abrupt changes in the fossil record, without proving the earth went through corresponding cataclysmic changes? We appear to be moving toward effect without the need for cause. Thus, he may have pulled the rug out from under himself on his magic carpet ride. First of all Gould does not propose as his maqin argument that "species adapt to a gradually changing environment." This is another non sequitur. How can Meyer say in an earlier paragraph that " Gould claimed that evolution was not a gradual process, but occurred in rapid spurts" then turn around and say that "species are adapting to a gradually changing environment" followed by "how can Gould account for abrupt changes in the fossil record, without proving the earth went through corresponding cataclysmic changes?" Meyer's arguments are thoroughly confused, perhaps by design to lie. Gould never adhered to the idea of a gradually changing environment (uniformitarianism). The basis for rapid speciation via punctuated equilibrium was based primarily on isolated very small populations (Founder's effect).

Robert Meyer is a good example with a preconceived erroneous idea that has a primitive religious agenda...creationism. He has no hypotheses or thoeries of his own, just absurd arguments based on a confusion of Gould's theories and evidence supporting those theories. He is another example of a type 'B' creationist that is making a fool of himself. His web site URL should be called "www.intellectualprimitive.org"