I think I am finally able to say what my "intention" was on begining an electronic correspondence with ICR as opposed to the more traditonal one of typed/handwritten letters with photo copy...
When I started to post I was struggling with my own categorization of atomics for which post-Wolfram I have been able to finish in a sense any critcism I may HIPe or hope in promotion c/e to levy... I read Socrates in PLATO to have commented in a way that I can about Wolfram's "new kind of science" about Anaxagoras. Socrates was intially interested very much in Anaxagorus conception of dissociation and the mind but found that *in the end* Axs was only taling about air and water and Soc wanted in the traditon a more "intellegent" work in/out. THE SAME THING CAN BE SAID ABOUT WOLFRAM'S 'simple program'. Only one can also take this post-modern momement to open the door and still be here saying that this means insteas one reject PLATO. That would be a leap but would not be impossible philosophically and certainly not epistemologically in the ontology to criticsize "revolutionary evolutionism".
I ask now, then; if it is TIME? Gould's entire within Darwinization (which is all that Gladyshev in calling the creationist recognization of the entropy and evolution issue (a contradiction)) hinges on a history of biology within Darwin's own corpus. THIS I tAKE Croizat to have denied correctly or not. That is up to science to decide. Grehen is on record for orthogenesis within Gould's "constraint. The Creationist Cause still remains at least on the TIME of 250 or so mills that takes the SUN around in our Solar System. Using this as AN ASSUMED placement philosophy for what I have previously on TAXACOM insisted occurr (as to Dobshansky's meso evolution) it is possible by ordertype sets with w and *w representing pervere perturbations TIMINGS that any Darwininzation of Macrothermodyanmics can be tested experientally as Gould WOULD be correct to assert that history have a place along with chemistry and physics.
I would be my THEORY to show that the time for any integration possible in the science (even if reduced by back pedling in theory to a mil or tens of millions of years) is due to a LAW OF GROWTH and that beyond THIS TIME predictions are possible FOR THE GAPS, as creationist thinking indeed supports and found the history Gould is trying to read rightly or wrongly IN darwin.
This however unlike GOULD IS NOT an extention of Darwin's view. I do not claim credit for this as it was dependent on posting on Taxacom, ICR, and here as well as other correspondences I attempt to associate.
This being a problem for temporal issues I may be stuck doing haptic science until it's recogniotion leaves the lower leaves of the ivory tower. Bable away...
™ Version 4.2