|Wesley R. Elsberry
Joined: May 2002
More comments from "The Unbalanced Centrifuge":
Peter Wayne said...
Read this and stop spreading vile nonsense :-)
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:13:06 AM
Denyse, a very important question for you, as a journalist, is why we should accept anybody's claims about what Gould believed or did not believe when Gould explained his ideas and beliefs at great length in writing, over and over, and these claims seem to contradict Gould's own writings? Who are we to believe, Gould himself or somebody claiming to speak on his behalf?
This question cuts to the very heart of your integrity as a journalist. Your hostility towards "Darwinism" (whatever that means, since you so often throw the word around without defining it, but evolutionary biology is not nearly as monolithic as you seem to think, nor does it slavishly follow Darwin's ideas) and your blind open-mindedness toward "intelligent design" have seriously undermined your objectivity as a journalist.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:20:48 AM
Denyse, you still insist on not lifting a finger to research the Stuart Pivar claim, eh? What would Jesus do?
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 10:46:47 AM
Richard Gordon said...
I wrote you a few days ago, at Stuart Pivar’s request, to firstname.lastname@example.org, but received no reply. I’m at [EMAIL=GordonR@ms.UManitoba.ca.]GordonR@ms.UManitoba.ca.[/EMAIL]
Since you suggested that a conference on structuralism is a vague rumor, let me just say that Stuart and I are indeed considering organizing such, perhaps under my suggested title:
Digital Burgess II, Workshop on Structuralism & Emergence: What Causes Complex Design in Life?
I did not know Gould personally, though while he was still alive I critiqued some of his ideas in:
Gordon, R. (1999). The Hierarchical Genome and Differentiation Waves: Novel Unification of Development, Genetics and Evolution, Singapore: World Scientific and London: Imperial College Press, 2 vols., 1836p. http://www.wspc.com.sg/books/lifesci/2755.html
where I put forward my own ideas on the origin of form. However, I am open to other hypotheses. Thanks.
Yours, -Dick Gordon
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:47:28 AM
Denyse O'Leary said...
Actually, you will find next time you check your box, Dick, that I have replied. I am a bit behind in personal e-mail. cheers, Denyse
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 12:40:12 PM
Andrea Bottaro said...
I am sorry, but this is too much.
In the space of 24 hours, Mr. Pivar has gone from:
"Every statement SJG ever made rejects natural selection, and none can be found in its support. "
"Steve could not shoot his mouth off with the public hearing that there is no explanation for design. you could not and still cannot speak against natural selection in the academic situation without censorship"
So, which one is it? Did he reject natural selection in his every statement, or was he too afraid to even mutter a contrarian word about it?
Really, to suggest that Gould could be academically intimidated is simply ludicrous. The guy held an endowed tenured professorship at Harvard, was a member of the National Academy, had won every prize, award, and honorary position a scientist in his field could aspire to, was enormously popular with the public and made more money from his books than he could ever hope to spend. That he would give a piffle about what the “Darwinist orthodoxy” thought or did is just sheer nonsense.
In fact, in my opinion Mr. Pivar has now crossed the line from being a simple crank misusing Gould’s name and his personal connection to him to promote his own pseudo-theories and agendas, to actually tarnishing Dr. Gould’s memory and reputation by distorting his work and accomplishments, and by questioning his scientific integrity with the claim that Gould would cowardly self-censor in fear of career repercussions.
From somebody who calls himself Gould’s friend, this is deeply troubling and saddening, to say the least.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:07:51 PM
Joel the Bowerbird
Joel the Bowerbird said...
Your misconstruing of what Gould said is nothing short of inflammatory and wrong. I would ask if you have ever actually read any of his books, but I think that I already answered my question.
Gould was certainly a talented writer, albeit a mediocre biologist. You do nothing but shame his legacy by including him on what is a clearly misguided and uninformed blog.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:56:08 PM