Sure it does. One fairytale to replace another fairytale, that's on lifesupport. "Quick, nurse, give me 5000cc of punctuated equilibrium, STAT!"
Fairytale? Aren't fairies supernatural creatures with wings? I don't think there are any of those involved in evolutionary theory. What about your theory?
That's like saying: "Look at all the different life forms, Evolution must be true." ...now that's scientific?
No, it's like saying "look at life forms with the characteristics of both fish and amphibians, or both reptiles and mammals, and these are evidence for macro-evolution."
...but saying: "Look at all the magnificent variety and complexity, there must be a very wise creator." ...that's unacceptable?Ã‚Â
Why not ten creators, or 500?
Why shoud we agree with Gould? He just showed some candor about the evidence. We don't have to marry someone's ideas inorder to note a particularly interesting aspect of what they say.
Certainly. But if you don't agree with him on stasis, why quote him on it? Why not try and find him saying something like "there are no transitional fossils", or "there are no transitional fossils outside genera" (kinds for you)? Something you do agree with.
I don't think you can afford any real stasis in nature to create all the complex ecosystems and the diversity within kinds that we see over a 4,000 year period since a world wide flood. Dynamic change, yes. Stasis, no!
In my studies of history and other matters that have lots of views, I've found a good test for reliability is recognizing the things that your adversary feels compelled to take into consideration as true because of mounting evidence.
A good example is the fact that the Jews had counter stories against the disciples about why JesusÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ tomb was empty. However, the fact that the Jewish leadership, being hostile to Christianity, admitted the state of an empty tomb, is useful knowledge for determining what happened and what is actually true.
It would be interesting to apply that to the history of creationism. In the nineteenth century, the claim would be that creatures were created as they are. No micro-evolution at all. In modern times, we have young earth creationists accepting a high degree of evolution within "kinds", and some of the old earth I.D. types accepting a lot of macroevolution and common descent. Evolutionary ideas like mutation, selection and speciation seem to be increasingly incorporated into creationism.
The "adversary feels compelled to take [these things] into consideration as true because of mounting evidence" as you might put it.