Posted on 01/15/2005 2:06:00 PM PST by Happy2BMe
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Since 2002, Dr. Kenneth Miller has been upset that biology textbooks he has written are slapped with a warning sticker by the time they appear in suburban Atlanta schools. Evolution, the stickers say, is "a theory, not a fact."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'"
- Stephen Jay Gould,
"Evolution as Fact and Theory"
How people that do this can call themselves Christians boggles the mind.
I hardly think God needs anyone to lie for him. He is the Creator - plain and simple. How he created life isn't important to me. But if scientists believe that humans evolved from some single cell organism, I think that takes way more faith than believing God created human beings, just as the Bible says. Nothing will convince me otherwise. Scientific thought changes, as it should, but God never changes.
If how God created life isn't important to you, then why discard the overwhelming scientific evidence of evolution by common descent?
I believe God created biological evolution as His way to allow for change. There is no conflict between God and science. Science is God's.
It is only the scam artists at ICR, AIG and DI that promote this false division between science and Scripture. To me, these charlatans are pure evil, dividing the body of Christ and promoting false teaching--heresy.
"I hardly think God needs anyone to lie for him."
That was my point! These frauds at AIG, ICR and DI presume to defend God from something God made.
SJG says it is true "Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level". Are you calling him liar too?
No. Of course not. But you misunderstand the quote. This does not refute evolution at all.
Species differences are very slight. In sexually reproducing organisms, the definition of speciation between a mother and daughter population is the unwillingness or inability to breed with each other (population).
These differences are difficult to find with just skeletons remaining. When large skeletal changes are observed (or any large taxonomic variation) it is obvious that there is a separation (normally at the Family level or above).
Only an expert can tell the difference between two related species of beetles, for example.
And that is the whole point. Creationists do not understand the science. Or sometimes AIG and ICR purposely distort the science to their scientifically ignorant followers. When they hear scientists discussing a technical point, like why it is difficult to find species transitions in the fossil record, they use it to lie about the scientists. They actually accuse the most reputable evolutionary biologists in the world of being creationists.
This is patently dishonest and shames all who call themselves Christian.
As such a lie detesting personage, would you please back your potentially libeleous statements of fact which I have listed below. You have stated each as a fact. Loving "truth", surely you have support for each.
You better tone down the personal attacks if you want to carry on a debate with me. I won't respond until you apologize.
Buster, you opened up the personal attack. And you are ignorant or nuts -- in my opinion based on your replies. And arrogant -- on that I think your posts tell the tale to any who would examine them. I demand and insist upon an apology -- a humble, unadorned apology from you. Yet I have almost nil expectation of receiving it for your arrogance will not allow it, I would suspect.
Saying you misunderstood something is hardly a personal attack. But calling someone ignorant or nuts is.
You may not like to hear the truth about the cult of creationism, but the truth is it is a total scam and a hindrance to evangelism and the progress of the Gospel.
You know, they do make zinc-supplements. Supposed to be very healthy for you.
Uh huh, don't know any biology, eh?
"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups."
Does that help?
What is a group and what is a species? Does "species" seem like a settled definition to anyone? Why and how if so.
Kingdom Animalia
Phylum Chordata
Class Mammalia
Order Primates
Family Hominidae
Genus Homo
Species sapiens
The above is the Linnean classification for humans.
Species is defined, but the concept is confused in assexual reproduction, since one of the key criteria is inability to reproduce (or unwillingness to reproduce in nature). There are very slight differences between a population where one species arose and the daughter population. And sometimes even sexual reproducing organisms can reunite and produce a new species with combined characteristics. (This is why Darwin's finches are so confusing to creationists.)
[The biological species concept is based on the idea that a species is a group of interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other species. Reproductive isolation can be genetic (the hybrids are sterile), behavioural (individuals of the two species are not able to mate because of differences in courtship, for example) or physical (they are separated by geography). This concept is of course not useful for fossils. Species boundaries for extinct species must be created cautiously since this type of data is unavailable. ]
The above is the reason that fossils are difficult to seperate as species. No biologist has observed their behavior directly, so they look at behavior in existing species and combine them with forensic information to arrive at conclusions, like whether something is carnivorous or herbivorous by adaptation of teeth.
Admittedly, the judgement on what is a new species must contain some subjective judgements based on experience. On the other hand, some species are different based on totally objective criteria that the two populations do not interbreed.
These are descriptions of different types of speciation. This does not explain the mechanism of speciation, but is simply description of an observed pattern among various populations under study;
Allopatric speciation: (allopatric means literally "different homelands") in this model two populations which are geographically isolated from each other (eliminating the possibility of gene flow) can gradually diverge to form two distinct species.
Sympatric speciation: (sympatric means "same homeland") species arise in this model despite being in the same location. Some other effect must isolate a subpopulation from the rest of the population; this is often behavioral, and often occurs very rapidly.
Parapatric speciation: (parapatric means "near the homeland") species can form at the border between two populations. Often this border mirrors an actual geographic border, and the species formed occurs at this margin.
All of the larger groups above species are rather subjective, and are subject to great debate among taxonomists on the fringes, where transitional organisms lie. (When I say transitional, this does not mean that they are at the node of a separation of species, but have continued to evolve up a branch, but still retain many characteristics of two sets of larger classifications.
Currently cladistics, a whole different way of classifying by related groupings is popular. I am not thrilled with it, but it seems to help in certain fields like paleontology.
Sorry, forgot to include you. this is a ping to 415
Hey Joe... Excellent point. I totally agree. Every time I hear Rush talk about evolution, I cringe. He should stick with politics.
Thanks Shubi.. you've expressed my opinion exactly.
How is this a "forced" removal any more than creationists were attempting to "force" the sticker on the books?
I have something to add to this thread.
Where in the pathways of logic is it rational to assume that EVEN IF one were to disprove evolution that this would validate the story of Creation as told in the Bible or any other mythology?
Hell, next time there's a carbon dating error, maybe I should shout about how we found Enkidu's bones or some such nonsense.
Really, all the creationists do is attack but they have no real alternative theory that isn't strictly based in their religion.
How would species come about other than God just making them pop out of the ether(or being instantly converted from another animal?) Is there a non-God based version of how speciation occurs? Seriously.
I don't think they would ever HAVE a theory of their own(esp by the scientific definition) because, if you think on it, what other choice is there? Spontaneous generation? God willing it? ALiens like Q from Star Trek having made us? What?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.