>Group
>
>On Mon, 23 Dec 1996 03:09:23 -0800 (PST), David Lee Nidever wrote:
>
>DN>Sure, have to make sure what our definition of evolution is. But
>>I don't agree that the only facts about evolution are from
>>microevolution. What I'm talking about is the fossil record. We
>>see that life started with microorganisms, and then more complex sea
>>animals, then fish, then land organisms, and on and on. We see a
>>lot of change in life over time. We see that new organisms appear.
>>This isn't saying anything about how any of it got there. These are
>>just the facts about the history of life, and they show definite
>>change over time. This is what I call the facts of evolution.
>
SJ:====
>They are indeed "the facts about the history of life" but they are
>not necessarily "the facts of *evolution*", unless you know somehow
>that a fully naturalistic mechanism called "evolution" caused them.
>If you assert that, I will then ask you what *exactly* that
>mechanism was:
>
David went to a lot of trouble to define exactly what he meant by
"the facts of evolution". Why are you playing these word games?
As per your request to know *exactly* what the mechanism was,
please see below:
[...]
>
>DN>These can't be disputed and that's why I'm saying ICR is wrong.
>>They don't account for the facts of evolution in the fossil record.
>
SJ:===
>That the "ICR is wrong" does not necessarily mean that "evolution"
>is right. If the God of the Bible exists, and He has created
>progressively over time, the the "ICR", although "wrong" about the
>details would be right in the big picture.
>
Very good, Steve. Likewise if Blind Watchmaker evolution is wrong
it does not necessarlily mean that Intelligent Design is right.
Right?
[...]
SJ:=====
>
>This is easy to explain by an Intelligent Design model, but
>difficult to explain by a `blind watchmaker' model.
>
On Tue, 07 Jan 97 06:48:03 +0800 under the subject heading
"Re: Fw: The Mere Creation Discussion" Steve Jones wrote:
==== begin quoted material ======================
Group
On Sun, 08 Dec 1996 21:13:32 -0600, Steve Clark wrote:
[...]
SC>Note, I do not say that this is known fact. Rather, I simply
>wish to point out that the theory of evolution can, in fact,
>include a model for prebiotic evolution.
Unless some sort of detailed mechanism is specified, it is vacuous.
For example, if "evolution" means simply "change through time", as
the California Science Framework defines it (Johnson P.E., "Darwin
on Trial", 1993, p145), then by definition it is true, even
tautologous.
====== end quote ====================================
And now I will hold you to your own criteria. Please specify for me
the detailed mechanisms used by the Intelligent Designer. If you
cannot do this then I will have to conclude that your so-called
Intelligent Design model is vacuous.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University