Made by science writer Michel Ruse according to Phillip Johnson (Law Professor at Berkley) who was given the tape where this admission was made.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMKxx_KeTF8 Fast forward to 6:07
Edit to those who only have insults to hurl: Your only confirming my suspicion you have nothing of substance to offer. A wise person once told me people only resort to name calling and results when they have no intelligent criticism.
Edit to Cait: True this can apply to anyone who has bought into evolution carte blanche without questioning anything.
Edit to Narathzul: I really don't blame anyone these days for turning off comments. There is so very little in substance being offered but tons of childish insults and name calling. This may be effective for smearing but is intellectually dishonest and does nothing to add to the debate. If anything it is an admission of the bankruptcy of intelligent critique.
Edit to laineibsky: I specifically addressed my remark to "those who only have insults to hurl" intentionally because for one I know there are some reasonable respectful atheists and two I know there are some out there who cross examine every word looking for something objectionable so they can completely reject what is being said.
Edit to Fine Material: try and get our facts straight. Kent Hovind is a young earth creationist. Phillip Johnson is not. Phillip Johnson is a Berkely law professor who served under Chief Justice Earl Warren of the supreme court.
Edit to eternal lie: There is deductive evidence for God's existence.
Edit to well travelled: You seem to have left our the part that Darwin's training was in medicine and theology and Charles Lyell was a lawyer. Note" there aren't any specialists in evolution it is a generalists country".
Edit to Chrcinders: the quote you provide isn't the same meeting that Michael Ruse spoke at which was given to the American Association for the the advancement of science annual meeting in Boston 1993.
Edit to Chard: I am glad you agree that the link you provided isn't the same speech he gave. Luckily for you and me the complete transcript of the other speech he gave is available from the national center for science education P.O. Box 9477 Berkeley Ca 94709 -0477, USA (cost US $1.00 plus postage).
Edit to Nigel: These admissions aren't really anything new. Ruse quotes others who have said to some degree basically the same thing. And from time to time evolutionists from various fields express some doubts about the lack of evidence in their particular field, but when a creationist gets wind of it they go into damage control claiming they are being taken out of context and that they are still evolutionists (which was never in question). The current field is so dogmatic it makes it difficult to be honest about critiquing ones own work.
I can understand evolutionists reluctance to question their theory and even more so to admit any problems to the public. Not only do they fear being used by creationists as support but they also fear the backlash from within Darwinian orthodoxy. Stephen Jay Gould defended one such person who although being an evolutionist questioned the evidence and was trashed by the scientific community for his honesty. Gould likened Richard Goldschmidt to Emmanuel Goldstein from Orwell's classic 1984 two minutes of hate. Goldschmidt had real problems with the evidence which lead him to believe that evolution can happen allot quicker. The problem for some evolutionists is this was really no better than creationism. Gould ended up defending much of what Goldschmidt said ad believed he would some day be accepted.http://www.darwiniana.tripod.com/gould_nh_86_6_22-30.html
Edit to those who only have insults to hurl: Your only confirming my suspicion you have nothing of substance to offer. A wise person once told me people only resort to name calling and results when they have no intelligent criticism.
Edit to Cait: True this can apply to anyone who has bought into evolution carte blanche without questioning anything.
Edit to Narathzul: I really don't blame anyone these days for turning off comments. There is so very little in substance being offered but tons of childish insults and name calling. This may be effective for smearing but is intellectually dishonest and does nothing to add to the debate. If anything it is an admission of the bankruptcy of intelligent critique.
Edit to laineibsky: I specifically addressed my remark to "those who only have insults to hurl" intentionally because for one I know there are some reasonable respectful atheists and two I know there are some out there who cross examine every word looking for something objectionable so they can completely reject what is being said.
Edit to Fine Material: try and get our facts straight. Kent Hovind is a young earth creationist. Phillip Johnson is not. Phillip Johnson is a Berkely law professor who served under Chief Justice Earl Warren of the supreme court.
Edit to eternal lie: There is deductive evidence for God's existence.
Edit to well travelled: You seem to have left our the part that Darwin's training was in medicine and theology and Charles Lyell was a lawyer. Note" there aren't any specialists in evolution it is a generalists country".
Edit to Chrcinders: the quote you provide isn't the same meeting that Michael Ruse spoke at which was given to the American Association for the the advancement of science annual meeting in Boston 1993.
Edit to Chard: I am glad you agree that the link you provided isn't the same speech he gave. Luckily for you and me the complete transcript of the other speech he gave is available from the national center for science education P.O. Box 9477 Berkeley Ca 94709 -0477, USA (cost US $1.00 plus postage).
Edit to Nigel: These admissions aren't really anything new. Ruse quotes others who have said to some degree basically the same thing. And from time to time evolutionists from various fields express some doubts about the lack of evidence in their particular field, but when a creationist gets wind of it they go into damage control claiming they are being taken out of context and that they are still evolutionists (which was never in question). The current field is so dogmatic it makes it difficult to be honest about critiquing ones own work.
I can understand evolutionists reluctance to question their theory and even more so to admit any problems to the public. Not only do they fear being used by creationists as support but they also fear the backlash from within Darwinian orthodoxy. Stephen Jay Gould defended one such person who although being an evolutionist questioned the evidence and was trashed by the scientific community for his honesty. Gould likened Richard Goldschmidt to Emmanuel Goldstein from Orwell's classic 1984 two minutes of hate. Goldschmidt had real problems with the evidence which lead him to believe that evolution can happen allot quicker. The problem for some evolutionists is this was really no better than creationism. Gould ended up defending much of what Goldschmidt said ad believed he would some day be accepted.http://www.darwiniana.tripod.com/gould_nh_86_6_22-30.html