Hi, Jeff.
Just so you know: I’m not the one going around indiscriminately giving you 1’s for all your messages: I don’t see that you’ve done anything particularly bad.
Although, I think this topic is quickly going to become a debate everything about evolution/creation simultaneously in short blurbs thread. Maybe we should plan on using some of these points as prompts to start new threads.
Jeff Davis writes:
Many creationists tout this, so Hawley is merely letting a less educated public know this.
Best to avoid the matter altogether: by trying to set the record straight about what Darwin did or didn’t say, Hawley is just reinforcing the stupid notion that scientists treat Darwin as their prophet or holy man. In actuality, if Darwin were alive today, we’d probably all want to debate with him, rather than gather around and hear his words of wisdom.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
Bluejay writes:
quote:
Biological evolution does not say we came from monkeys or chimps.
No, it doesn’t. But, the
evidence does. This is only a way to comfort people who want to accept evolution but also want to believe that humans didn’t evolve.
Sadly, you are wrong. The evidence conforms to Hawley's comment.
A semantic point, at best. It depends on what you want to call a monkey. I would certainly argue that the first animals that began evolving in the direction of apes would have been best described as monkeys.
But, the
theory doesn’t say this: the
evidence does.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
It looks to me like his target audience are Christians who've had a science education from their religious leaders. In view of this, I'm sure this is not trivial.
You don’t think Darwin’s word choice is trivial? What he called it has no bearing on what it was. Frankly, I don’t see what difference it would make if even evolutionary biologists went the rest of their lives not realizing that Darwin didn’t use the word evolution.
The only response to these kind of arguments is to ask, Who cares? Otherwise, it’s still just feeding the notion that we think of Darwin as some kind of holy man.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
Bluejay writes:
quote:
The Genesis phrase, And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind, perfectly matches macroevolution. In other words, macroevolution is actually evolution "within" kinds.
...unless, of course, the definition of macroevolution is taken to mean evolution between kinds, as is often the case.
The problem is, science rejects your definition.
It’s not
my definition: it’s
creationists’ definition.
What he’s saying is that
all evolution is still evolution within kinds, which is not correct, because, interpreted properly, macroevolution indicates that there is no evidence that kinds even exist, which undermines his point that baraminology and macroevolution perfectly match.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
Bluejay writes:
Furthermore, God made the beasts... doesn’t perfectly match The beasts evolved... anyway.
Oh, contraire. First, why would an ancient document even use the word "evolved". Second, from a theistic evolutionist perspective, God did make the beasts but used biological evolution as one of his tools.
First, it’s
au contraire (it’s French).
Second, did you catch that Hawley’s page says God made the beasts...
perfectly matches macroevolution? That match is far from perfect, even if it can be argued to be a match at all.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
Bluejay writes:
There are so many conflicting views on what a fact is and what a theory is, that any position you take on this issue is largely semantic.
Oh contraire again. There is no conflicing view about these words in the scientific community, and this is obviously the one he is referring to.
I happen to be a professional member of the scientific community, and I can state with considerable certainty that you are very wrong. In
philosophy, they make a big deal about what counts as knowledge, what counts as fact, and what counts as theory; but, in science, most of us really aren’t all that fussy.
Some people say fact refers only to the data you collect (e.g., turtle specimen #122 weighs 0.718 kg).
Some people say that evolution is both a fact and a theory (e.g., it is a fact that things evolve, and the Theory of Evolution is our best explanation for
how they evolve).
Some people, like myself, argue that gravity is not actually a theory at all, but just a pattern of observations that lacks a theory-level explanation (space-time curvature is, I think, the best hypothesis currently available).
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
quote:
Scripture reveals the exact height of Noah’s flood, Fifteen cubits (only 22 feet) upward did the waters prevail (Gen 7:20), which is in exact accordance with Orthodox Jewish interpretation and archaeology.
In 2,900 BC, a major river flood destroyed the southern city states of Sumeria. The two rivers were the Tigris and Euphrates. Twenty two feet would be appropriate for a river flood. This is in accordance to archaeology, so I bet this is what he's getting at.
If this is all he meant, then I guess I’ll retract my complaint.
But, when someone says, X is in accordance with
archaeology, the insinuation is that the field of archaeology agrees with X (i.e., Noah’s flood was only 22 feet high), and not that there is evidence for something similar to X (i.e., we found evidence of a 22-foot-high flood in Sumeria). It’s misleading, at the least.
-----
Jeff Davis writes:
I'm sure this comment relates to flood geology claimed by all young earth creationists. It does show who his target audience is.
That doesn’t give him the right to call all layered sedimentary rocks a proof of Flood geology or to say that it was dreamed up by a teenage prophet poser.
And, the guy who found that Taq polymerase makes PCR practical and more useful for scientists spent much of his time on LSD because it reportedly made him see more clearly. This doesn’t change the fact that Taq polymerase actually works.
Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits, and not on the personal flaws of the people who come up with them. For some reason, Hawley (along with many other creationists/IDists) apparently has not figured this out yet.
-----
My assessment is that Hawley---while good-intentioned and helpful---is still making the same fundamental errors that the creationism/IDism movement in general makes. To use his metaphor, he is still using the same broken flashlight he claims other creationists are using: he's just pointing it in different directions.
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition at the end.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2