Though I don't care much for Gould's politics, I certainly don't have a
problem with Gould attacking Bork's politics. Bork is a frightening man,
and it appalls me that he was so close to being on the Supreme Court. I
have never understood why even his opponents always described him as a
"brilliant constitutional scholar"; even a cursory look at his law
journal writings makes it clear that his legal reasoning is at about a
3rd grade level (evidenced by the fact that my 4th grade son figured out
the flaw in one of his more absurd legal ideas).
> Unlike physics, paleontology is a science in the sense of forensic science.
> The evidence for evolutionary transition of humans from apelike ancestors is
> not abundant enough to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it has
> occurred. The overwhelming numbers of Americans still believe in a Creator.
Is "beyond a reasonable doubt" the correct standard by which to judge a
scientific theory? Should we apply legal standards to science?
> Evolutionary theory is not a theory in the same sense as Einstein's
> gravitational theory where there is an underlying mathematical model with
> predicative power.
Nor does the Germ Theory of Disease have an "underlying mathematical
model". And the theory itself has predictive power with evolution.