[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 
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 -
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.
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
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.

Other related posts: