Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
43 online now:
Admin (Percy), Aussie, AZPaul3, jar, JoeT, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric (8 members, 35 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,346 Year: 20,382/19,786 Month: 779/2,023 Week: 287/392 Day: 18/129 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What has evolution theory produced?
JonF
Member
Posts: 5530
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 31 of 32 (74103)
12-18-2003 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Brad McFall
12-18-2003 10:45 AM


Re: micro, macro again?
Well, he used the plural "creationists" in his claim, so an example of one creationist is obviously insufficient.

"Known about" is a poorly chosen vague phrase; it could mean many things, from being aware that some people believe that there could be such a thing as speciation to explicitly accepting the fact that speciation happens in the lab and in the wild.

The sentence "Educated Creationists have known about speciation for over 200 years" is poorly worded; he should have included a quantitative modifier such as "One or two" or "A few" or "Most" or "All" at the beginnning of the sentence.

It appears to me, from context, that he means "All educated Creationists have accepted that speciation occurs, for over 200 years."

Then, of course, the question of "What's an educated creationist?" arises. I suspect that JP defines an educated creationist as one who accepted that speciation occurs, making his claim a trivial tautology.

Assuming for the moment that he does not define "educated creationist" thusly, to support his claim he needs to come up with some definition of "educated creationist" and supply measurements or plausible arguments that support the idea that EC's have accepted speciation. Note that "It's stupid to deny speciation" is not a plausible argument; there is no argument so stupid that no creationists endorse it, and speciation is deied by many today (many of whom appear to be poorly educated).

The passages from Numbers that I quoted in this message present some difficulties for him doing that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 12-18-2003 10:45 AM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 12-19-2003 8:40 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3345 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 32 of 32 (74367)
12-19-2003 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by JonF
12-18-2003 12:27 PM


Re: micro, macro again?
Thank you,
I had not realized that this was possibly a very narrow issue but I will look at little harder at JPs threading connected to this discussion. There may be a broad issue here as after listening to SJ GOULD being interviewed for "A Glorious Accident" it is clear the issue of SPECIES CHANGE in a single or few generations COULD be part of what indeed baraminology is becoming specificaly if there is indeed more heterogeneity and not homogenity proceeding cultural counter to Gould's view on consciousness specifically if one was thinking of " developemental progress" and "predictive necesity" but again I will need to look a little harder if this applies to you and JP etc as to any old species denial. The link you provided will indeed make this less ambiguous. You should know that I will be comparing this EC to Zimmer claim that the "conflict" did not result in a "new generation of creationists" well....we got EC ones right or rather the emergence of it's arisen expression.

I do not have my copy of NUMBERS with me to see what you might also if other have been saying but I did not recall that reading of Price there that I had to take HIM as the authority in creationism on speices but rather only the Price-Clark difference which is ecologically difficult as one would be if one understood my own understanding of Gould's use of "ecology". This is why I will be listening quite closely to what baraminologist have to say about motion of organisms before and after the flood for it is clear that as to homogenity heteofore Gould with his idea of LOCAL DARWINIAN Action as to ecology does not in the broad distinguish small and large RANGES which local vs Global floods inclines the thought quite quickly enough. One is left to Guess with GOuld.

Again, Thanks - this is one of the better kinds of posts I have been able to read into lately. JP can not be ignored in the aplaud mind you once again. I probably dont need to tell you that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by JonF, posted 12-18-2003 12:27 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019