>
>CC>I meant that you blindly quoted it without checking to see if the passage
> >you quoted was in fact *true*.
>
>As I pointed out to Chris, it seems that what Kelly said *was* true, about:
>"Despite a close watch, we have WITNESSED no new species emerge in the wild
>in recorded history." (Kelly K., "Out of Control," 1995, p.475. My emphasis)
it actually is *not* true. It was not true when Kelly wrote it. Kelly's
book was published in 1995 and the study I cite below was done in 1990.
This is quoted from "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller which I strongly
recommend to Stephen and everyone else on this list.
--------------
Rhizosolina is a genus of diatoms, single-celled photosynthetic organisms
that produce intricate and distinctive silicate cell walls. When their
owners die, these glass-like walls fall to the ocean floor and produce a
sediment so dense that it can be mined as a diatomacious earth (and used as
a filtering matrix for swimming pools). Two distinct species, Rhizosolemia
praedbergonii and Rhizosolenia bergonii, are known from sediments dating to
1.7 millions years ago. If we trace these species backwards in time, we
gather data that duplicate, with uncanny precision, Darwin's drawing of
speciation.
Beginning at 3.3 million years before the present, we can see the
increasing range of diversity of the ancestral species, leading to a
broadening at 2.9 million years that splits into two distinct lineages in
less than 200,000 years. The continuous deposition of diatom shells has
provided a complete record covering nearly 2 million years. Thomas Cronin
and Cynthia Schneider, who reported this study, were lucky enough to find a
speciation event right in the middle of their data.
T.M. Cronin and C. E. Schneider, "Climatic Influences on Species: Evidence
from the Fossil Record," Trends in Evolutionary Biology and Ecology 5
(1990): 275-279.
--------------
It is just not a good idea to stake the veracity of your religion on
continued human ignorance. It's not a good bet. Your God either created the
universe and everything in it--including evolution--or he did not. Saying
that "science doesn't know X therefore my religion is true!" hurts science
not at all and is devastating to your religion when ignorance becomes
knowledge. I'd suggest you drop that line of debate but that's the gist of
all creationist arguments isn't it? "If evolution is true then my religion
is destroyed, therefore evolution must be proved to be false at all costs."
Often that cost is the personal integrity of the person doing the refuting
but what the heck, if it saves Christianity, right?
The big problem is, that evolutionists often argue exactly the same thing:
"if evolution is true, then religion is false." It is the one point upon
which evolutionists and creationists warmly agree. That line of
argumentation is not required by either science or Christian theology. I've
actually never made that argument myself (she takes a little bow). My line
of argument has always been "evolution is true (and here's why) and that
means nothing about the truth of Christianity."
Susan
--------
Always ask. Hang out with people who make you laugh. Love as many people as
you can. Read everything you can get your hands on. Take frequent naps.
Watch as little television as you can stand. Tell people what you want. Do
what you love as much as you can. Dance every day.
--------
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 18 2000 - 09:48:39 EST