Evolution? How?

Hi au,

Aren't these ministers, by signing the Dover letter, etc getting involved in a political issue?

I thought you were all about separation of church and state?

Or is that dependent on what political view is being advocated?

real life
What is political about accepting a scientific fact?

You're too smart to be effective at playing dumb, Au.

Try again.

They're mixing politics with their religion. Why can't you just admit that?

The dispute is between Evangelical Christianity and reason. Basically they as Christians are stating their belief that evolution is scientific fact and they are disassociating themselves from the Evangelical position.

The churches didnt establish a "litmus test" for membership. In the Dover case, the issue was compulsory "Intelligent Design" as science.

Id read a number of the church letters sent in support of the plaintiffs in the Dover case. I also read those in support of ID. It was remarkable how the Evangelicals were waay outnumbered.

As far as my comments on RL's comment and position of Sun 2/12, Ive found what I was looking for, RL are you someone who,is in support of Michael Dentons paper
"Evolution:A theory in Crisis"?

If so , How far do you carry what we call "microevolution"? . eg Do you consider that all animals of differing species to represent microevolution and anything higher is macroevolution?, and macroevolution, as said by Denton, just doesnt exist?.

rl, both sides of religion became heavily involved in the Dover case. So the issuance of Discovery Institutes "Manifesto" would also be considered politics by your standard.Ya cant have a one-sided argument on this.

Hi Farmerman,

I have no problem with ministers addressing political issues. I think it's part of their responsibility.

AU1929, on the other hand, has repeatedly decried instances of 'mixing religion with politics' . That's why the current seeming exception to his rule of separation of church and state is so hypocritical and deserves to be highlighted.

I'm not for the muzzling of the free speech rights of anyone, including ministers whether they agree with me, or not.

K

I haven't read Denton's paper so I really couldn't respond to it.

However, taxonomy is somewhat subjective wouldn't you agree, in that we decide where to draw the line between different species, genus, etc.

So , when we say 'see here this is a whole new species or genus etc' it really isn't proof that anything approaching evolution has occurred because the line is where we decided to put it.

It's a kind of circular reasoning IMHO.

The Linnean System of binomial nomensclture is decidedly Creationist in its intent. Im not thrilled with it but the system hasnt had any major flaws in how organismal structure is interpreted.
lets take an example to see whether its so arbitrary as to be " useless"

AN EAXMPLE USING ANCIENT HUMANS
Kingdom--Animalia(I guess I dont have to argue that animalias and Plants are different enough to occupy separate kingdoms) Thats the Linnean way

Phylum-Chordata (these are animals with a notochord (and most are actually vertebrates)

Class-Mammalia (mammals break off here)

Infraclass-placentals (all mammals that either are not egg layers, extinct infraclasses, or are marsupialls

ORDER-Primates.
SUBORDER-Anthropoidea (apes , monkeys, and hominids)

SUPERFAMILY_Hominoidea -apes and men

Family -Hominidae

genus-Homo

Species -erectus

Even though the system is Creationist it certainly has its logic of structure "defines place" built within. Now the newer system thats being proposed is entirely genetic and fossil derived . While most major groups remain the same, when we get to Orders and up , we see that genetics interprets things into only about 4 major groups. Now this may be more circular to you because the genetic similarities define the 4 groups which assume common ancestry from the genetics. (Im sure the Creationists wont like that at all)

Now, where does microevolution stop, in your system of science?

rl, the stipulated attributes of any purported creator are very much to the point in this discussion. Now, does your creator embody the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and perfection, or not?

And your opinion of taxonomy notwithstanding, its hardly arbitrary, it is based on rigorous examination and evaluation of the available evidence, it conforms with logic, scientific method, and Occam's Razor, it is open to expansion and even revision attendant upon newer, superior data, it is falsifiable, and it doesn't depend on magic. The ID-iot proposition, on the other hand, can claim nothing of the sort. The ID-iots have no science on which to base their absurd assertions, they have no valid research, they have but theologically-based objection, predicated on a thorough misunderstanding, if not consciously dishonest misconstrual of science. Even the "Teach the Controversy/Wedge Approach"`is an absurdity unless also argued is that astrology should be taught alongside astronomy, alchemy alongside chemistry, and shaminism alongside medicine ... which, of course, presents yet more absurdity.

Oh, and The Dover Letter is all about keeping the theologic and the secular from interfering with one another; it is very much an endorsement of the separation of church from state. Anyone but a died-in-the-wool, irredeemable, acamemic luddite of an ID-iot can see that.


Now, just to refocus here, does your purported creator embody the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, and perfection, or not? That's a very simple question, and a very simple "Yes" or "No" answer will suffice; in fact, only a simple "Yes" or "No" answer will do.

Just keeping telling yourself this.

Didn't say it was useless.

But, I think we should recognize that ANY taxonomic system is subjective, would you not agree? We decide where to draw the lines based on criteria of our choosing.

Just because two critters fall on opposite sides of an artificial line that we have created , this doesn't really indicate anything about evolution having occurred to place them in different categories does it?

I stated that the Linneaen system is decidedly Creationist in its structure(you have any disagreements?). However, your point seemed to me, to state that the system was "arbitrary" to the extent that it was impossible to accurately determine higher taxa, and by being so, made it impossible to determine macroevolutionary breakpoints. I disagree , since Linneaus was interested in a workable system that could, with 2 names and a hierarchy based upon homology, categorize all plants and animals .

While I think that the system has outlived its usefulness in the light of evolutionary evidence, it is what it is. Its what weve got, and we work with it.

My purpose in doing a quick run through by using Homo as an example,was to see whether youd objext to the fact that higher taxa structure was based upon group characteristics that made some sense . My main reason was to show that macroevolutionary evidence can clearly differentiate the group changes "Between" species , rather than "within" species (which is what microevolution is). Further, data and evidence are quite clear that when enough microevolutionary events occur, they give rise to macroevolutionary change that can easily be seen in the fossil record and within genomes of differentiated species.


As far as Michael Dentons book Evolution a Theory in Crisis . Its date of pub was 1985 by Adler & Adler of Bethesda Md. I believe you can buy it on Amazon in the used book section. I have a copy , I think you should also, it can provide you with some other points to ponder and give some roots of authority to many of the points you provide herein.

I agree with you that the Linnaean system is creationist in outlook.

I think that using any taxonomic system to support the idea of evolution tends to result in circular reasoning.

That is because 'changes' between species are a reflection of where we have decided to draw the line, not a reflection of any actual 'change' that has been observed.

'Organisms A and B are categorized as belonging to different species because they have evolved thus. We know that organisms A and B have evolved because, see, they are different and belong to different species.'

It's circular.

-------------

Denton's book sounds interesting and worth a read.

Your argument is circular, rl. However it is your argument. It is not the argument that taxonomists make. That isn't circular.

Every try to mate a hamster and a ferret?

RL--Species is a working system that uses reproductive behavior as the primary distinguishing point among different members.
You may say that all higher taxa are arbitrary. I say that, using these fossils in a Linnean system proves that theyd existed at one time, and its surprisingly consistent how these time occurences fan out in an orderly fashion in the stratigraphic column. Its also interesting how critical changes among higher taxa members occur in a delightfully consistent order.
None of which supports ID or Creation.
In order for you to have some evidence to support creation, youd need evidence of long term contemporaneity among"arbitrary" members of a fossil clade. So far, thats never been seen. Ill go so far to say that weve never seen fossils of species together from members that occupied the same niche at different geologic times. Thats a critical shortcoming of your "evidence". Instead of positive occurences of species that show change, you must rely on "non occurences " of species and then you are forced to say that they existed but were just never fossilized.

All in all, Id say that the Linnean system recognizes the fact that the diversity of species has occured and is classifiable, even if there are a few mistakes in the list. If we think about it,were there no species and higher taxa differentiation the whole system would break down because every life form would sorta be like every other one , wed all do everything , we just wouldnt do it really well.
Dave Raup , in his book, "Extinction, Bad Genes or Bad Luck" states that, from the fossil record and from tallies of microfauna today, there were , at one time or another, from 5 to 50 Billion species on the planet, with about 40 million living today. Your system of science would have those species go extinct but up to a point of extinction they must have existed(but they just didnt leave any fossils). That belief strains credulity because , the fossil record, besides letting us know when something went extinct, happily lets us know when things were alive.Its a glimpse into the daily life of a trilobite. For an excellent example, we have a wonderful record of trilobites all through the Paleozoic. They swam and ate and died and were fossilized. We can see the changes in their little trilobity corpses and we are assured that these little critters swam the Paleozoic seas for about 320 million years. They left us records of their changes and their adaptations that coincided with the appearances of trilobite loving predators. Then, at the end of the Permian , they disappeared. The important Linnean system fact is that , at least as far as the fossil record shows, THEY NEVER CAME BACK. So, your belief that entire lines can exist but not be fossilized is an unprovable (and therefore,IMHO, untrue) assumption , at least based upon the long term fossil record. If all your forms were created at a single time we would have fossils of their existence before they went extinct. ( and usually At that point of extinction we often are left with a rapidly declining mass of fossils as the species "end" came about so we often just make an arbitrary line and say that they went extinct at "about"this time...)
You say that Creationists avail themselves of the same data that scientists do, I sorta doubt this, because your side hasnt thought out the full consequences of some of those statements and just how you use this data.
If Creationists had one shred of evidence to ,indeed, show that , say elephants lived during the devonian or that any mammal lived in the Paleozoic then your argument would be on a more science -like basis.
Science isnt perfect, we often operate on hunches and hypotheses, but as soon as these are shown to be true or false , we quickly support or abandon them with equal speed


Creation science , on the other hand, will use any means to try to disprove the evidence and steadfastly hold on to an unprovable hypotheses. I do not want that kind of "effortless and untestable" science taught to my kids.(Fortunately, I now live in a state where a federal judge has agreed with me)

This is a very enjoyable thread which I have now been following for nearly a year.

I don't have the natural science credentials to participate as I might like to; but I have a pretty good understanding of the nature of God and his purpose. The threefold question you have asked is essentially a strawman in that it imposes restrictions on the free will of the creator.
I refer particularly to use of the word 'omniscient'.

This is not just a minor point. Either God knows all things by necessity or he is selective in his foreknowledge.

We have here two entirely different concepts of reality.

As Erasmus aptly proposed: "Let us shun any hypothesis that makes man a puppet and God a tyrant crueler than any in history."

I sure wish you had done a little more than simply observe here:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1707666#1707666

Your particpation would have added greatly to the discussion.

You betchya its not a minor point neo ... its pretty much a make-or-break point, and not even Erasmus can equivocate past it. There is no straw man there, and there is but one reality.