FreakMonster said:
From what I gather about the theory of punctuated equilibria, it was formed to address the appearance of the fossil record, not to account for progress, as the original theory of evolution by natural selection already did account for progress. Correct?
Seems there is alot of misconceptions that progress is a concept that relates directly to evolution.
Gould remained quite allied with the fundamental theory of evolution, yes. The particular concern is the absence of records of intermediate species and the question of how new species arise. Darwin, basically under the spell of the economic and social philosophy of his time, assumed a gradual change, an inevitably forward-moving one through natural selection. Gould argues that the basic theory is sound -- there is plenty of evidence (as brock and tierv note)-- but that the change was not necessarily gradual.
Generally, yes, evolutionary theory -- whether social or biological -- tends to presume that the subject moves forward, improves. IN terms of humankind's history, we know this not to be true. History is full of evidence that entire civilizations perish and we can move "backward" for very long periods of time. We presume, too, that we are always moving forward intellectually and yet it would be very hard to find anything written today that exceeds, say, the wisdom contained in the Buddhist dharma (even the core of particle physics is there) or, for that matter, the teachings of Christ.
Usually we like to say that we move forward, fall back, move a little further forward. There is no real reason to think this. An example is the Greeks' heliocentric view of the universe -- completely lost for thousands of years and, when re-posited, it was demonized by the church, which supposedly represented an improvement over the polytheistic pagan religions. There are countless examples of humanity's fall back into ignorance.
But it is also true, in the manner Gould theorizes, that people suddenly leap out of ignorance. The fall of the Berlin wall, the end of the Soviet Union are examples of radical phase changes that were wholly unexpected. IN some ways that is what has happened with the status of gay people this summer. Of course, if you have an Old-Testament viewpoint, this represents a fall back into ignorance.
For me it is a question of what creates the most wellbeing for the most people. All gay people want is the right to love one another without being criminalized. How it is that consenusal love between two people of the same gender theatens the foundations of society, as the Pope argues, I don't understand.
I do understand that legalizing marriage between gay people would radically change the culture's understanding of that institution. The fact that it has become legal in parts of Canada and the European Union represents one of those sudden changes that leaves many people boggled -- as the fall of the wall in Berlin must have.
In reality I see the inclusion of gay people in the marriage ritual as one of many pressures to change an institution that has been faltering for decades. About 50 percent of marriages end in divorce. I think if we looked at our committments less dogmatically -- less according to the taboos of the church -- maybe relationships would endure longer.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
