SJ:===
>So macro-evolution cannot be defined as "the origin of novelty" unless
>creation is ruled out of court, as not scientific.
>
You weren't listening ;-), creation is about the best example of
macro-evolution that I can think of.
[...]
>BH>Again, we are looking at facts as opposed to theories. If there
>>is an origin of novelty and if organisms change over time then
>>evolution has occurred.
>
>Not unless you define "evolution" circularly as "change over time".
>Then you are making the earth-shaking claim that "change over time"
>proves that "change over time" occurred! :-)
>
You are starting to catch on ;-). Go back and read again the distinction
between fact and theory and you just might get it. I think most of the
difficulty here is that "fact" and "theory" mean something quite different
in science than they do in everyday conversation. Its very easy to play
word games and mislead the average layman. Individuals on both sides
are guilty of this I think.
>BHThis observation in and of itself says
>>nothing about whether a particular "theory" has been successful
>>in explaining the observation.
>
SJ:==
>Agreed. And one such "particular `theory' " is progressive creation,
>which is emphatically *not* "macro-evolution".
>
Well, I haven't ever seen a scientific theory of progressive creation,
however, if progressive creation indeed occurred then of course
it would be macro-evolution.
>>>BH>I know you probably want to protest vehemently against this :).
>
>>SJ:I suspect Brian is aware of the question-begging nature of his
>>argument.
>
>BH>It's only question begging if you confuse facts and theories.
>
SJ:==
>Yes. And that's what I submit that you (perhaps unwittingly) are
>doing. :-)
>
Really? I have done the best I can to explain how the terms "fact"
and "theory" are used in science. The distinction is extremely
useful, IMHO. There are many examples to show that this distinction
is not peculiar to evolution. Since you don't seem to like these
definitions perhaps you would like to take a shot at it? Give me
some definitions of "fact" and "theory" valid for all fields of
science.
[...]
>>SJ:Brian has just confirmed Ross' description of "evolution" as a "shell
>>game"! :-) Note, I do *not* (an nor does Ross) accuse "evolutionists
>>of being sneaky".
>
>BH>What are you saying then, that a person who engages in a shell game
>>is not being sneaky?
>
SJ:===
>I make no statements about individual *persons*. I do not claim that
>evolutionists are deliberately being deceptive or dishonest. I assume
>it is their evolutionary paradigm that causes them to switch between
>definitions without realising it.
Where I come from a shell game is deliberately deceptive and dishonest.
SJ:==
>I have a tape of a debate between
>Eugenie Scott and Phil Johnson. Ms Scott comes across as a really
>nice and sincere person. But she keeps switching definitions so that
>Johnson can't pin her down, and she seems genuinely puzzled that
>Johnson cannot understand her argument that evolution is a fact. The
>blurb on the tape brochure says it well:
>
I am genuinely puzzled as well. Its a rather simple concept really.
[...]
>BH>I'm just trying to explain the terminology. I hope you aren't
>>implying that plasticians use this same terminology in order to help
>>evolutionary biologists conduct their shell game.
>
SJ:===
>No. But if "the majority of scientists are `evolutionists'" they
>will share the same overall evoltuionary paradigm.
>
You're missing the point. This terminology is used extensively throughout
various scientific disciplines. Its used because its useful. When the
average plastician is working on plasticity (s)he really couldn't
give a flip about evolutionary paradigms.
>>SJ:Like James, I am still waiting for the "tremendous evidence that
>>macro-evolution has occurred"! :-)
>
>BH>You've just admitted to it above, you just don't realize it yet ;-)
>
SJ:===
>No. I "admitted" that "change over time" occurred, but this could be
>the result of *progressive creation*. To date you have not given
>a "*unique*, non-circular, definition of `macro-evolution' ", let
>alone showed that it occurred.
>
Yes I have and yes I have.
========================
Brian Harper | "I can't take my guesses back
Associate Professor | That I based on almost facts
Applied Mechanics | That ain't necessarily so"
Ohio State University | -- Willie Nelson
========================