[geocentrism] Re: Evolution
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:51:34 +0000 (GMT)
Jack L
I've had a look at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/life-cr.htm and it
does look interesting however it is the musings of an academic and is very
speculative. It would require the skills and knowledge of one similarly
qualified to follow most of what he says.
The other thing which disturbs me is the way God and all the trappings of
Goddom are liberally scattered through the site. He makes it obvious where his
'loyalties' lie. Now the man has a Ph D -- though in what discipline is not
stated. If it is in the chemical/biological arena and he is doing real
research, then if he finds weakness, improbability, conflict -- why not just
state that that is what he found. If he is correct, then that is knowledge
which may or may not be useful to others -- depending upon whether or not these
results can be duplicated. Involving God in the discussion just displays his
bias and immediately alerts his readers to this. There are christian scholars
engaged in the sciences who publish papers which contain just the facts, so why
does he mention this? It has no scientific value.
Some of his discussion is interesting but I fear he has already come to a
conclusion
Regarding Michael Behe and his well worn mousetrap, I've read a number of
discussions of his theories and why, after significant investigation (he did
rather throw a spanner into the works after all) these theories have been
largely discounted. The blood clotting cascade was very interesting. One of
those aforementioned investigations looked into this function and to this
blundering amateur, a very good case was made for an alternative explanation
for its origin which falsified the irreducible complexity argument. Sadly I
can't recall who this was and a search for such info -- along with similar
searches for every other thing I can't remember -- would exhaust my remaining
allotment of time.
I found an interesting article while on this subject which you might look at
here -
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/2638_the_elusive_scientific_basis_o_12_30_1899.asp
It is titled and authored as shown immediately below together with the
distilllation of the results.
The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design
by George W. Gilchrist
IndexYearsIntelligent DesignEvolution
BIOSIS1991-97168 832
Expanded Academic Index1989-973014 298
Life Sciences Collection1982-97145 963
Medline1990-97129 228
Science Citation Index1992-95410 333
The article explains the criteria for the search but in essence it is a result
of a search of the scientific literature -- published research papers -- over
this and the previous decade to discover the relative activity in the two
indicated fields. I think you can see immediately why I'm not particularly
interested in ID.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Now to your second post. I'm running short on time and a minor crash just lost
me about 20m worth so I'll be brief -- comments in teal.
Now you can see what I mean about being drawn into other areas of evolution
before coming to a consensus about abiogenesis first. E.g. Transitionals and
the definition of a kind. Again you show your ignorance of evolution by asking
what did the kangaroo, or lemur or carnivorous caterpillars micro evolve from?
[How does this show my ignorance?] Creationist's say that, as the fossil record
confirms, .[ I suggest that it does not so confirm. You might care to check
this christian source -- http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm and if
nothing else, please tell me why you don't like what it says. Also, see PS
below. ] that all the different kinds were created and that subsequent
microevolution may have changed them a little e.g. alligators, kangaroos and
dragonflies or a lot e.g. dogs, cats and monkeys but they still all remained
the same kind. [ Well -- which kind is the kangaroo descended from? And are you
suggesting that it can breed with an
alligator?]
Regarding 'Archy' as it is affectionately know is a bird. Just for minute Paul
ask yourself why there are not an infinite number of transitional types spread
right across the fossil record? [ Sorry, but that is a ridiculous proposition
on at least two counts. I'll explain if you ask. ] Surely plain common sense
tells you that it cannot just be the plain 'kinds' that got fossilised. [ No
indeed not. But as long as you reserve to yourself the authority to decide
whether or not 'Archy' is transitional, then of course you will always decide
in your favour. Still while we're there, when was the last time you saw a bird
with teeth? ] Even Darwin was worried that he hadn't come across any and that
his theory was dependant upon finding them. A recent curator of the Natural
History Museum is on record as saying that he had never seen or heard of a
transitional fossil; if you want the quote I can provide it. I think that had
Darwin lived a lot longer he would have
retracted his theory because the transitionals, as he envisioned, have never
materialised. [ In your opinion plus one. I still have that creationist
perspective on evolution! ] There are only a few listed as transitionals and of
course creationists as well as others dispute them. [ And a very much greater
number do not. ] You must remember that there a lot of scientists who do not
accept evolution and who are not creationists. [ Got some names? If the table
in the section above is any guide, there can't be too many. ] If your are right
then there must be millions of indisputable transitionals. [ Not so! I'm sure
you would dispute them all. Question -- How many T. Rex skeletons have been
found? ] Creationists are, by-and-large, content with secular science's
definition of what a kind is [ Hardly! Secular science has never defined a
'kind'. That is a biblical concept, for which secular science has many times
asked for a definition from creationists and
never been obliged and this includes you. ] - so don't bother to go down that
road with me - but by all means check it out for yourself.
You seem reluctant, so I'll propose a tentative and hurried definition of
transitional form -- "A species which exhibits characteristics of an earlier
species together with characteristics of a later species. All, some, or none
need be extant." How about taking a risk and give me your definition?
Paul D
PS On the same site, one level up at
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/philos.htm#Science there are quite a number
of articles from a surprising range of sources from Dembski to Dawkins.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
Other related posts:
