[...]
BH:===
><< What exactly is meant by "evolutionary time scale". I can see two
>possibilities: (1) a time scale associated with the actual historical
>record of evolution (fact of evolution), i.e. associated with observations
>based on the fossil record etc. (2) a time scale associated with a particular
>theory of evolution , i.e. orthodox neo-darwinistic gradualism. In other
>words, in this interpretation we say things like "wow I don't think this
>could have happened according to Darwinistic mechanisms because
>these take a long time"
>
>I suspect that (1) is being used in the Pfeiffer quote above, but that
>Jim may be basing his argument for special creation on (2). >>
>
JB:==
>Hmm, I don't really see a major distinction here (or, as we barristers might
>say, "It's a distinction without a difference.") The argument is based upon
>the physical evidence (as agreed to everyone) laid across the template
>necessarily associated with Darwinian gradualism. The evidence does not fit,
>especially when one considers the time element. It does fit, however, with a
>theory of special creation.
>
It is on account of discussions like this that I have, in the past,
tried to emphasize the crucial importance of keeping the facts
distinct from the theories that attempt to explain them. Generally
speaking it is these facts that I would call the "fact of evolution",
the facts associated with how some phenomena changed with
time. Lots of folks don't like this terminology and in many cases its
not necessary to emphasize it. For example, I wouldn't emphasize it
in this discussion with Jim because he accepts the facts. Some
YEC's reject some of the facts and then think that in contesting a
particular theory they also contest the facts. It is in these situations
where the terminology "fact of evolution" becomes crucial in keeping
the facts straight.
OK, so this is my roundabout way of saying I disagree strongly
with what Jim wrote above. The distinction makes a great deal
of difference. Everyone may agree on the physical evidence
(the facts) yet disagree about which "template" to lay the evidence
across. It is not necessarily darwinistic gradualism. It may also
be self-organization, PE, nonlinear dynamism, special creation.
Failure to line up with the DG template doesn't automatically
mean it doesn't align with the ND template or that it does
align with the SC template.
When I previously asked "how fast is fast?" I had several things
in mind. For example, if we keep the distinction between the
physical evidence and the theories that attempt to explain it
we find right away that there is some difficulty establishing a
characteristic time scale according to theory. It seems to me
that such a scale will depend on a whole host of parameters
(population size, generation time, frequency of mutations, time
it takes a trait to spread through a population etc. etc. etc.)
and would thus likely change tremendously from situation to
situation. Characteristic time scales associated with physical
evidence are much easier to arrive at. One might be the average
life expectancy of a species (I think this is 10 million years). An
instant on this time scale might then be say 1000 years. The
Cambrian explosion, however, took about 5 million years if I
remember correctly. This is no longer an instant on the present
scale but since a lot of crud went on during this time a longer
time scale is generally used to describe it. The Cambrian explosion
is thus an "instant" on geological time scales. I'm guessing that a
characteristic geological time might be on the order of 100 million
years or so.
So we see that instants on one time scale may be very long on
another time scale. If we were going to guess the characteristic
time scale for special creation, what would we guess? [this may
seem a silly type of question to some, but I think if Jim challenges
one model based on time scales then his opponent has the right
to issue the same challenge]. This is very troublesome. It seems
to me that any number one gives is infinitely too large. Would it
be a second, a millisecond, nanosecond, picosecond? If we compare
any of these to the same 1000 years above we see that what was
an insant now becomes an eternity.
To sum this up, (1) characteristic time scales associated with physical
evidence and with "templates" must be treated separately.
(2)Instants on one scale can be eternities on another (3) To avoid
arguing from the false we also recognize there may be many possible
"templates". Refuteing one says nothing about the others.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University