Home » Humor » NCSE’s Project Steve named after a Creationist

NCSE’s Project Steve named after a Creationist

The NCSE has boasted about the list of people named Steve who are evolutionists. The irony is that The NCSE’s Project Steve is named after Stephen J. Gould who has been labeled by his peers as an “Accidental Creationist”.

I guess it’s too late for the NCSE to rescind their Steve list now that we know the Steve list was in honor of someone who is bad for evolution.

From THE ACCIDENTAL CREATIONIST Why Stephen Jay Gould is bad for evolution by Robert Wright:

Gould has advanced a distinctive view of evolution. He stresses its flukier aspects…In fact, if you really pay attention to what he is saying, and accept it, you might start to wonder how evolution could have created anything as intricate as a human being.

As it happens, creationists have been wondering the very same thing, and they’re delighted to have a Harvard paleontologist who will nourish their doubts. Gould is a particular godsend…

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

9 Responses to NCSE’s Project Steve named after a Creationist

  1. The funny thing about “Project Steve” is they have all these “Steves” and still no evidence to support their position.

  2. 2

    Robert Wright, the atheist evolutionary psychologist? That Robert Wright isn’t too well thought of here at Uncommon Descent if the archive search is any indication.

    And, frankly, trying to claim Gould as one of our own seems to be counterproductive. For goodness sakes, the man published his magnum opus, titled The Structure of Evolutionary Theory right before his death from cancer when he had nothing more to gain by cowtowing to the entrenched scientific power structure.

  3. Mike LaFontaine,

    This post was filed under the humor category.

    Sal

  4. From the original article:

    Gould’s politics are secular left, the opposite of creationist politics.

    Just for the record there is a third group besides the politically conservative Christian Darwin doubters and the politically liberal atheist Darwinians. It is to this group that I belong. I have yet to find a kindred soul among the commenters here. However, there are millions of us.

    Who are we? We are sometimes called New Agers. Basically we are firmly committed theists, yet adherents of no established religion. We reject all religious dogma and operate with the understanding that God gave each of us the capacity to determine truth for ourselves. Most of us believe in an unconditionally loving Creator, which is All That Is, the Unity, of which all creation is a part, including us. Most of us reject the notion of good and evil, and a judgmental God.

    Those of us who give it some thought usually, like me, become ID proponents, and most of us are political liberals, also known as progressives.

  5. @Bruce David Who are we? We are sometimes called New Agers.

    Yes I’ve been there, in Austin TX in the 1980′s, the dominant thinking (and acting, as you will see) mode at that time and place, for me as a moderating libertarian. Although still ecumenical in the most broad sense, I’m now a committed fighter in the disaster brought down on our country by “progressivism”. As a libertarian hanging with “progressive” new agers in Austin, I was right at home around all of the recreational sex, you see, and the “let it slide” attitude which has resulted in the majority of households in this country now getting more from the feds than they pay in. And one of the political parties happy as can be buying their votes.

  6. groovamos:

    the “let it slide” attitude which has resulted in the majority of households in this country now getting more from the feds than they pay in

    That’s a remarkable statistic, if true. Got a reference?

  7. That’s a remarkable statistic, if true. Got a reference?

    US Households U.S. households getting more from Uncle Sam than they pay in and a new congressional study concludes that the percentage of U.S. households owing no federal income tax climbed to 51% for 2009..

    I’m not sure this verifies groovamos’ claim 1:1, but it supports the general sentiment.

  8. Was Stephen J. Gould not an evolutionist?

    What he was labelled or called by others is irrelevant. Did he consider himself, not a ‘creationist,’ but rather an ‘evolutionist’?

    This is not Theodosius Dobzhansky here now, who considered himself both creationist and evolutionist.

  9. Stephen Jay Gould was an honest evolutionist!

Leave a Reply