At 02:48 PM 09/04/2000 +0800, you wrote:
>Reflectorites
>
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:20:51 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>
>[...[
>
> >SJ>Maybe Richard (or any other evolutionist) would be able to post what they
> >>consider "the most telling points against it", i.e. Evolution?
> >>
> >>I have asked this question from time to time on this List, and from
> memory I
> >>have *never* yet had a reply.
>
>SB>Interesting question.
>
>When I said I "have *never* yet had a reply", I mean to the actual
>question: "What do you, an evolutionist, consider the most telling points
>against evolution?"
>
>Some evolutionists have replied, but they *always* re-phrase the question
>to mean something else. Susan here is no exception!
>
>It appears that most (if not all) evolutionists are unable to even form in
>their minds the question: "What do you, an evolutionist, consider the most
>telling points against evolution?"
>
>SB>I think you are assuming that someone is in doubt...
>
>Note how Susan's reply rephrases the question. I asked "... any ...
>evolutionist ... what they consider `the most telling points against ...
>Evolution?"
I think the problem is, that the question is about a century out of date.
You are assuming someone, somewhere, is still trying to prove that
evolution is true by answering important objections. They aren't. The last
"telling point" that I know about was the lack of mechanism to transmit
variations from one generation to another. That was resolved around 1900.
Since that time all the evolutionary research has been focused on finding
further substantiation for it--transitional fossils, for example, which
have been found in abundance--and to figure out how it works.
The reason your question goes unanswered now is because it was answered a
very long time ago. You just didn't like the answer.
Johnson (and you) keep saying there are "flaws in" or "problems with"
evolution that evilutionists just don't want discussed. It is *you* (and
he) that don't want them discussed because when someone asks "what flaws?"
they get a bunch of tired creationist nonsense that has been refuted ad
nauseum and is really designed to fool people who are not familiar with the
actual evidence.
However, "they won't admit flaws" makes a really dandy sound byte for the
media.
>But Susan tries to change the subject into my state of mind ("assuming")
>about evolutionists state of mind ("doubt")!
If that is not what your question implies, then I don't understand the
question. What is the most telling point against evolution? There are no
"telling points" that I know of. The fact of evolution has been as
thoroughly verified than any other scientific theory (more thoroughly than
some). The details of evolutionary mechanisms have changed over the last
century as new information was gathered, but the fact that evolution has
occurred is not in doubt and hasn't been in doubt for a very long time.
>SB>...about whether evolution occured.
>
>And this is the usual retreat to a vague definition that cannot be falsified.
>
>In the past Susan has defined "Evolution" as "a change in the gene frequency
>of a population over time:
I don't think I'm the only one who uses that definition :-)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 11:49:44 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>
>[...]
>
> >Evolution is a change in the gene frequency of a population over time
>
>[...]
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>SB>Except for a few creationists there are not many.
>
>In fact even "creationists" would not "doubt" that!
Bertvan does. She's not the only one. Does this sound familiar: "the
variation was already in the genome and was just finally expressed--there
was no change in the genome, mutations are always harmful and kill the
organism."
>But how would that falsify Susan's definition of "Evolution" as "a change in
>the gene frequency of a population over time"?
Hm, I see your point. These would falsify that: the same antibiotics
working in the same way on the same bacteria every time. The same
pesticides working on the same insects the same way every time. One flu
shot making you immune from the flu for the rest of your life.
And, of course, no observed instances of changes in gene frequency over
time of which there have been many.
>Which only goes to prove my point that evolutionists apparently cannot
>bring themeselves to admit there are any "telling points against...
>Evolution"! This is evidence that to them it is not just a scientific
>theory but an object of `religious faith'.
You cannot bring yourself to admit that the earth might be flat (and
neither can I). Evolution is the truth as close as we can verify something
is true. And? The difference between evolution and religion is
*verification*. There is no verification possible for a religious
assertion. There are libraries and museums stuffed with verification for
evolution.
"Evolution is a religion" is probably the creationists' weakest
argument--other than "The flood really happened."
>I was talking about "Evolution", which is after all what this Reflector is
>about.
>
>SB>What evidence do *you* have against it?
>
>I have *plenty* of "evidence...against it" (i.e. Evolution). But my question
>was whether any *evolutionist* on the List "would be able to post what
>they consider "the most telling points against it", i.e. Evolution"?
I haven't seen your evidence against it yet. Did I miss it somehow?
>SB>The Cambrian Explosion ain't it.
>
>Which is interesting in itself. At least Darwin admitted it was a major
>difficulty:
>
> "Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before
> the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed,
> as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the
> Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods
> the world swarmed with living creatures. .... To the question why
> we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these
> assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give
> no satisfactory answer." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species,"
> 1928, reprint, p.315)
Darwin would be quite exited by the extent of the research that has
occurred in the last 141 years. He probably would have been especially
fascinated by the Burgess Shale.
>That is for Susan, and indeed most (if not all) evolutionists in my
>experience, "natural causation" (i.e. Metaphysical Naturalism) is "primary"
>and "the theory of evolution" is derivative."
That is *almost* as weak an argument as "evolution is a religion." The old
"it's not science, it's just an atheistic philosophy."
>This includes BTW those Naturalistic Evolutionists who happen to be
>Christians (who I have only recently realised I have wrongly been calling
>Theistic Evolutionists).
>
>Thus Susan, and indeed most (if not all) evolutionists in my experience,
>does not really need much (if any) scientific evidence for "evolution" and
>they just ignore any evidence against it. It is the *metaphysics* that is all-
>important.
Please trot out some of your evidence against it.
>After all, if there is no God, or if there is a God but He never
>intervenes in
>natural history, then it does not matter about the evidence. It simply
>*must* have been by "evolution"!
there's *evidence* that God intervened in history? You should drop Dembski
an e-mail!!! I'm sure he would be excited to hear it. Because so far it has
just been a religious assertion.
Once again with three-part harmony: A naturalistic assumption is absolutely
required by science. It cannot entertain anything else. Nature must be
assumed to be regular and orderly and unpunctuated by supernatural miracles
in order to make scientific study useful at all.
One of the reasons (maybe the only reason) I think Dawkins is an idiot is
because he takes this bald fact and extrapolates it beyond what it
means--just as you do, and just as Johnson does. A Dutch theologian that I
used to correspond with was flabbergasted by American creationism. "God is
the author of the universe," he said once. "How can evolution make you
doubt that?"
>SB>Even we were 100% certain that was the actual Christian Creation Event(tm)
> >things have been evolving ever since.
>
>If "Evolution is a change in the gene frequency of a population over time",
>then they sure have!
we are in agreement! wow!
Susan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 04 2000 - 15:45:11 EDT