Every evolutionist has a chance to win $250,000

In these discussions, the word prove gets thrown around an awful lot. This is fine as long as everyone understands that in science the word prove is just shorthand for, "Provide sufficient evidence to persuade a significant proportion of the relevant scientific community."The obvious question to then consider is, "Who is the relevant scientific community?" Those on the evolution side do not regard Creationists as part of any scientific community, while Creationists believe they are well on their way to building effective communities of scientists in the relevant fields. Both sides believe the other has an inappropriate bias.The problem with the various challenges is that they never get off the ground. While there is never any shortage of those accepting the challenge, there seems a significant problem in getting the acceptance accepted. Agreement on terms and judges is extremely problematic.Even if one of these challenges did somehow go forward, I hope no one has any illusions about what would happen. The best those accepting the challenge could reasonably hope for is a draw. Even if the impossible happened, the losers would in various ways call foul and nothing would be settled.This thread has made me think a bit about how agreement would be reached on judges for the challenge. Since Creationism isn't even science in the opinion of evolutionists, they're unlikely to agree on a panel made up of Creationists. Even a panel including just one Creationist might be considered a problem. And Creationists believe evolutionists are willfully misinterpreting the evidence to forward a humanist philosophy they find personally appealing. Seems like a deadlock to me.--Percy

Gould's definition of fact as something that is "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent" is central to the claim that it is a fact that evolution has occurred. It's important to note that this definition of "fact" includes a strong element of the ad hoc and a high degree of ambiguity.For example, the fossil record itself is a fact (actually, a large set of observations, measurements, etc), but the conclusion that it is also a record of change over time is a deduction based upon the data from that fossil record. It is so obvious a deduction that Gould calls it a fact, and most evolutionists would agree.But Lewontin says it is a fact that "organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old." I think most evolutionists would still agree, but now the chain of logic involved is longer, and the uncertainty greater.How long must the chain of deduction be before something is no longer considered a Gould-style fact? I don't know. I don't think he knows, either. This is where the ambiguity comes in, and it's why evolutionists and Creationists are unlikely to agree on the fact of evolution.Still, there is room for consensus. Most Creationists accept the fact of evolution within kinds, but the consensus has a relatively small radius, since YECs do not admit the possibility of evolution across kind boundaries (the views of OECs are too varied to on this topic classify in brief).Building upon this small consensus has proven problematic. Evolutionists relentlessly insist that Creationists produce evidence of the barrier to evolution across kinds, while Creationists insist the evidence for cross-kind evolution is at best indirect and inconclusive, and further that the possibility of cross-kind evolution cannot be entertained without stronger evidence.I can't see this particular facet of the debate advancing until better agreement is reached on what constitutes acceptable evidence of cross-kind evolution. All evidence of contemporary speciation is dismissed by Creationists as simply evolution within a kind, with the ambiguity of "kind" proving a great frustration to evolutionists. I'm trying to maintain a neutral stance as I write this, and I hope I'm not revealing any bias when I say that the central role of "kind" in Creationist philosophy is scientifically inconsistent with it's lack of specificity. The Creationist answer that they are working on a definition is a legitimate and fair one, but that renders any pronouncements they make using the term prime examples of putting the cart before the horse. Prior to defining "kind" it seems only fair that they refrain from characterizing their positions using the term. A skeptic might even ask how they arrived at their position without knowing the definition of a key term.But in that case, what business do Gould and Lewontin have throwing around an ambiguous term like "fact?" Good question, even if I did ask it myself.--Percy

---

Schraf writes:
Very enjoyable discussion, Mark! After some of the knee-deep crapola I have been slogging through, er, elsewhere in this forum, it is truly refreshing to have an actual back and forth exchange of ideas with someone intelligent.

---

Ahem!--Percy (Guideline Gremlin)

---

TrueCreation writes:
I'm beginning to wonder why at least 98% of the comments against Hovind are Jokes and not scientific credibility. (Here comes another Joke)

---

There's a chemistry joke that goes, "Poor Johnny, poor Johnny, he is no more, what he thought was H₂O was H₂SO₄."Of course, if you don't know a little chemistry it's not funny, because you don't know that H₂SO₄ is sulfuric acid. If you know even less chemistry then you don't know that H₂O is water and the rhyme makes no sense at all.To people unfamiliar with science Hovind's arguments might seem to have merit, but to those familiar with science his contributions are outright laughable. They're so wild and so outlandish they don't merit serious attention. It would make as much sense to rebut the science of the Cow Jumped Over the Moon nursery rhyme. Which has been done by the way, despite photographic evidence to the contrary. I couldn't find the satirical rebuttal, but I did find this cute postscript at http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Square/2041/heydiddlediddle.htm :The cat was declared a dangerous offender
and is now serving a sentence of
indeterminent length
It took awhile to figure out that Diddle Diddle
was more than just a nickname...The cow has been apprehended
for entering restricted airspace
and is being held for questioning by NASA who
would like to know just how
she managed to get enough
thrust to reach escape velocity...The little dog was impounded for breaking
several noise by-laws
his owners are trying to raise the funds
to get him out of the pound...The dish and the spoon are now living an
alternate lifestyle in an upscale section
of San Francisco where they are active
in the Housewares Pride Movement...--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-20-2002]