a lot of water gone under the bridge between us, bill. if you did a sample of tests on the same bucketful.....would you get widely different results........as you might on a geological sample ?.
but thanks for clarifying what you meant, re methods.
"distorted view",...sure, everythings in the past to some extent, but some of it is in the recent past and was subject to repeatable, testable examination. pronouncements about the long gone past are interpretations of measurement and data guided by assumptions, coloured by worldview. I stand by the distinction.
you misread me re gould. I don't know of any creationist that says he does not subscribe to evolutionism. quite the opposite. in fact it is as a hostile witness, that his words carry more weight , and why the damage control comments came after. I see he speaks of "abundant" transitionals. as you have read his works, I presume you could say what these are. I am sure there are a few debatable examples.....and a few that have since been abandoned.
PE was proffered surely because of the scarcity of transitional examples...a theory to explain the lack of evidence for gradualism.
yes, I think he may have regretted letting the cat out the bag. I don't see that I have taken it out of context , but his further comments sought to clarify his continued evolutionary position.

so, stu, you object to my opinions because I don't know much. yet you have said yourself that you are not that educated either, but you say far more insulting things about creation scientists, who know far more than either of us. a little reflection needed, methinks.