To: Dominic Harr
Can we communicate? Here's a hint: Notice how everyone else ignores "f.Christian"?
It's because everyone else realizes that he's usually too busy trying to keep the oatmeal from sliding out of his ears to make any sense.
131 posted on
07/11/2002 12:35:37 PM PDT by
gdani
To: gdani
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.
This is double talk, and merely closing ranks against creationists. This is the old trick of claiming there is no doubt that evolution occurred; the only disagreement is about the mechanism.
But modern evolutionary theory is all about providing a plausible mechanism for explaining lifes complexity without God. If the disputes undermine favored mechanisms, then the materialist apologetic crumbles. The supporters of various evolutionary camps score mortal blows against the mechanisms proposed by rival camps, so its perfectly reasonable for creationists to point this out.
For example, with the origin of birds, there are two main theories: that birds evolved ground up from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory), and that they evolved trees-down from small reptiles (the arboreal theory). Both sides produce devastating arguments against the other side. The evidence indicates that the critics are both rightbirds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!
Similarly, supporters of jerky evolution (saltationism and its relative, punctuated equilibria) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing change is so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with both: punctuational evolution cant happen, and gradual evolution cant happenin fact, particles-to-people evolution cant happen at all!
Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements.
Pure assertion. This quoting out of context is a common fetish repeated by skeptics and their churchian allies. The silliest thing of all is to write to the author and ask whether he had been misquoted, which some anti-creationists actually do, as surprising as it may seem. All one needs to do to demonstrate misquoting is to compare the quote with the original.
Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervalswhich may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Goulds voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution,
They do no such thing. Rather, they make it very clear that Gould was a staunch evolutionist, but criticised many aspects of neo-Darwinian theory. Quoting Gould was the perfectly honorable strategy of using a hostile witness. See Gould grumbles about creationist hijacking.
and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.
First, most creationists present Goulds ideas correctly, and those ideas are not the exclusive property of evolutionists. Second, even many evolutionists think that Gould has largely himself to blame because of his injudicious (from an evolutionary viewpoint) comments. For example, Richard Goldschmidt was famous for promoting a hopeful monster theory, which indeed said something very much like a bird hatching from a reptile egg. And Gould wrote an article called The return of hopeful monsters11 where he said:
I do, however, predict that during the next decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology.
When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.
Easy to assert, but another thing to prove. If there is any out-of-context quote on our Web site, for example, we would like to know about it, because we are not about misleading people. Where such things have very rarely occurred in our literature over the years, we have willingly corrected them. Rennie has made sweeping assertions, but without substance.
To: gdani
I'm really on a hot thought, tho.
He, and all the creos I can find, seem to agree with all the specifics of evolution, and only disagree about the age of the Earth.
Which brings a *very* interesting light on this running debate.
I'm thinking this long-running debate is more a study of people painting themselves into corners than anything else.
The 'creo' crowd has spent so much time convincing themselves they don't believe in 'evolution', all the while agreeing with evolution.
Interesting.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson