Steve quoted me
>
>BH>"...Incidently, if you accept the definition of evolution that is
>>commonly offered on talk.origins, (variation in the frequencies of alleles
>>from generation to generation) then it is also a demonstration
>>of evolution. I have argued (and I still argue) that insisting that
>>evolutionists stick to this (scientifically defensible) definition of
>>evolution might do a service both to science and to Christian apologetics
>>among scientists. But few listen. [self-pity mode off :-)]
>
Then responded
>The problem with this definition is that it is too broad and would
>encompass everything without really saying anything meaningful:
[some quotations which essentialy make the same point snipped].
My response:
That is exactly my point. If you force the evolutionists to stick to what
they can defend scientifically, I don't think they can defend common
descent. Evolution as defined by population geneticists is scientifically
defensible, but it's a long way from establishing common descent. (Common
descent is what most people mean when they say evolution) By accepting the
gene frequency definition of evolution -- and only that definition -- we
avoid unnecessary fights with researchers who study the observable behavior
of genes. The issue as I see it is whether the _observed_ instances of
evolution are sufficient to justify the phylogeny inferred by Darwinism. I
don't see the fossil record as unequivocal support for common descent.
What the fossil record does show is that life developed (or was developed)
in stages. That is consistent with PC, TE and some versions of ID.
Bill Hamilton | Chassis & Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)