> Scott seems determined to miss the point - and you
> really can't blame her,
> as the scandal develops. Essentially,
The only 'scandal' I really see is some poorly founded
assertions about what Gould would or would not have
done.
Since Gould is dead, it seems that we may never know
the answer but we can venture a well educated guess by
looking at his writings in which he clearly opposes
intelligent design.
It's that simple really.
Denyse:
>It's Gould's friend who's making the noise, not me. I
>only covered the story.
Aha, you only 'covered the story' and yet this
'reporting' involved more than just 'covering the
story' didn't it?
Such as " Scott seems determined to miss the point -
and you really can't blame her, as the scandal
develops."
Interesting statement: scandal develops... Is this the
kind of reporting we can expect? Seems a bit tabloid
like to me...
Project Steve is clearly mentioned as a parody and
Gould, as far as I can tell is not even counted among
the scientists who did sign the statement.
Reading the work by Gould, I would not have been
surprised if he had signed the statement to oppose the
creationism of intelligent design and to support the
theory of evolution.
Of course Gould died a few years ago so we may never
know. Why some try to claim a 'scandal' seems a bit
confusing to me
> My money's on the friend though.
Well, I'd say that you have made some poorly informed
bets before so one may not be too surprised by your
recent one.
Received on Wed Oct 26 04:39:03 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 26 2005 - 04:39:04 EDT