Dear Tweets,

Sorry for dragging this on more - Don Baccus raised two good points that
reminded me I needed to clarify one thing.

I wrote:
>> The FACT that most scientists ACCEPT
>>evolution as fact does not MAKE IT FACT.

>>Don Baccus wrote:
>Evolution is fact, as it has been observed in nature. HIV, for
>instance, appears to be one organism which has recently evolved.

Yes, SORRY, let me clarify - at the time I wrote I was thinking in the
context of MACROevolution - eg birds evolved from dinosaurs, mudpupies from
fish kind of evolution. Here we are stuck with fossil evidence,
cladistics, best guesses and the like.

NATURAL SELECTION and MICROEvolutionary changes (eg HIV developing from
other viruses) ARE clearly observed in nature! This is why we keep having
to change antibiotics - development of resistence is microevolution based
on selection. Of course! (does that make me an "evolutionist"?)

Does microevolution + time lead to macroevolution? Perhaps, perhaps not -
here it does become post hoc application of hypotheses to data. We cannot
test this! Unlike gravity, which can be tested over and over for millenia!
There is a reason that gravity is considered a scientific LAW!

>Don also wrote:

>They have never given us a testable
>theory of creation. It's not science.

NO, it isn't science, technically. The controversy deals with origins -
and macro-evolutionary changes. You can't test anyone's theory on origins
as we pointed out before. And as creationists believe organisms (birds,
fish, mammals, etc.) were CREATED they dispute macroevolution. I don't see
how macroevolution can be tested either.

And FINALLY! Don wrote:
>Do you believe that lying in the name of God is a Christian act?

No, happen's a lot though doesn't it (generally speaking)? Lying is NEVER
right - even if in the name of God (I think there will be a lot of people
with a lot of explaning to do when they meet God) AND even if you are the
president of the United States (sorry - couln't resist)! I also think it
is a rather sweeping generalization to consider all creationists liars.
I'm sure there are at least a few honest ones - that do examine ALL of the
evidence! I also think that creationists do not have a lock on duplicity.
"Scientists" are not above cherry-picking and twisting the data to their
own ends - as much as they may try to be. We are all subject to our own
personal biases - consciously and unconsciously.

Thank you for a lively discussion, I will return to "birds are cool" topics
now!

Bonnie Stout
Burnaby, BC
bestout at sfu.ca


Bonnie Stout
Department of Biological Sciences
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 Canada
ph:(604)-294-9355
bestout at sfu.ca