At 08:07 AM 11/9/98 -0800, Bonnie Stout wrote:

>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.

Speciation has been observed. For a long time, scientific creationists
said that "kinds" were species, but now that speciation has been observed
in nature they've tried to move the goalposts. Besides being intellectually
dishonest, they've had a very difficult time telling us just where the
goalposts now reside.

Quick, educate me: just WHAT is a "kind" as spoken of in the bible? Order?
Family? Genus? Species? Subspecies?

Tell me where in the bible the distinction is made.

Tell me EXACTLY where the distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution
lies.

What is the exact definition of the boundary? If you define that boundary
and someone comes up with an example on the "macro" side of that boundary,
will you admit then that macroevolution (whatever that is) does happen?

Or will you do what the professional liars of the ICR have done, and simply
redefine the boundary so that new discoveries lie on the "micro" evolution
side rather than the "macro" evolution side?

> 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!

You didn't read my statement about the THEORY of gravity, did you?

Have you even heard of Newton? How about General Relativity and a man
by the name of Einstein?

The existence of gravity is a *fact*, and Newton and Einstein both
developed THEORIES of gravity to explain that fact. In fact, Einstein
proved that Newton's theory is WRONG, though most of us would be
hard-pressed to generate real-world examples demonstrating this
fact. Newton's theory is quite adequate for figuring out what will
happen if you jump off a 10-story building, for instance.

Evolution has been observed in the real world, and we have the
Theory of evolution and the continuing evolution of that theory to
explain it.

Scientific creationists have no theory to explain evolution as we observe
it, other than to say, "oh, that's not what we mean when we speak of
evolution, we mean "macroevolution of 'kinds'", which causes biologists
to scratch their heads and say, "hmmm, what's a 'kind'?" and when they
get no firm answer, to turn their backs and get back to work.

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

>NO, it isn't science, technically.

Thank you. End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned. It ain't
science, it has no place being labelled as science, it is faith pure and
simple, and an ostrich-in-the-sand kind of faith at that.

At least you're honest in saying it's not science. The ICR claims that
it IS science, and have testified under oath that they believe this to
be true. In other words, they perjure themselves in the name of God.

Even Clinton doesn't perjure for God, he only perjures for his own
benefit...he may be a jerk, but he's not even close to the level
of the professional lying scum of the ICR when it comes to hypocricy.

(ICR is the Institute for Creation Research)

> The controversy deals with origins -

Again, evolution is not about origins. God could've created the earth
the universe, life, and the engine of evolution, no problem.

Or he could've created the universe, knowing full well that life would
arise from the creation, and that mankind would evolve from that life.
Given that he's omnipotent, it's no big deal for him to do this. In
fact, it's a damned clever way of doing it, and this image of God is
far more likable than the image that arises if one believes God created
everything 6,000 years ago then worked really hard to lie to us by
making the properties of the universe incompatible with its youth.

>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.

So you are saying that a "kind" is a class? I.e. Aves, Mammalia, and
the like?

Scientific creationists don't dispute macroevolution based on a "kind"
being defined as a class. As I said above, their definition by
tradition has been to equate "kind" with "species" but they're having
a real problem holding to that position these days, given that
speciation has been observed.

> I don't see
>how macroevolution can be tested either.

Since scientific creationists don't give a PRECISE definition of
"macroevolution" (i.e. the evolution of "kinds") it is, of course,
untestable. That's one of the reasons why we know they don't
practice science, they refuse to give a precise definition of
"kind" and stick to it.

>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)?

Specifically speaking, too. The ICR folks lie, and they know they're
lying, they're too smart to know they're not lying.

> Lying is NEVER
>right - even if in the name of God

Pardon me for disagreeing, for I believe lying is never right ESPECIALLY
in the name of God, not "even if" in the name of God.

>I also think it
>is a rather sweeping generalization to consider all creationists liars.

I'm not speaking of those who believe the lies they're told, i.e.
your typical American who has little or no education in science and
relies on others to inform them on this (and other) technical issue.

I'm speaking of the professional liars within the community of
so-called scientific creationists, especially those of the ICR.

>I'm sure there are at least a few honest ones - that do examine ALL of the
>evidence!

It is impossible to examine all of the evidence and to conclude that
the earth is only 6,000 or so years old, as does the ICR. At best,
one can do what another who posted recently appears to do, i.e. to
believe that God has falsified the record, in order to test our faith,
I presume?

The fact that you believe that professional scientific creationists
base their conclusions on "all of the evidence" is naive.

> 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.

Individual scientists, sure. However, science as a profession adapts
to new data, even when that data challenges deeply-held beliefs. Quantum
theory, for instance.

Scientific creationists, however, start with the premise that the bible
is the literal truth when it comes to the history of the Universe. No
amount of data will change their claim that the earth is only 6,000
or so years old and that "kinds" were created, that there was an
earth-wide flood in historical times, etc.

That's not science. That's faith. I'll never condemn anyone for their
faith, but I'll freely condemn those who lie about the world in order
to bolster their faith, or in order to keep science from being taught
in public schools.

Which is why I condemn professional scientific creationists. They're
lying hypocrits who will burn in hell.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net