Bertvan:
All I can tell you, Wesley, is that it would take a lot more than presently
exists. You replied to a challenge to say something true about "evolution":
WRE>"- Patterns of differences in sequences of proteins and heritable
WRE>information support the idea that these differences have accrued
WRE>since the time of a last common ancestor."
Bertvan:
That such facts support common ancestry is certainly true. It might also
support other scenarios, such as horizontal transfer, symbiosis. or the
possibility that similar DNA results in similar morphology, and the genome
itself has some unexplained ability to organize itself in similar,
meaningful, purposeful, designs and patterns. I would also need to resolve
the question of whether life is an anomaly which arose only once--on Earth-by
accident. In which case, one common ancestor would be obvious. If on the
other hand, life is the inevitable result of complexity, as Stuart Kauffman
suggests, or as Michael Denton appears to believe, life is a natural
phenomenon in the universe, life must have arisen many times. In that case
one common ancestor (or even 3) would hardly be likely, would it? In your
opinion, does common ancestry include an assumption that life only arose
once? (or 3 times?)
WRE>. As it is,
>creationist belief has tended more and more to resemble
>evolutionary biology. In little more than a century and a
>half, we have seen a change from general adherence to the
>doctrine of special creation to a range of beliefs,
You write in another post:
WRE>As I have discussed before, even YEC
WRE>usage of "special creation" has changed meaning such that
WRE>it has more and more come to resemble evolution, as in the
WRE>reduction over time of the number of claimed creation events
WRE>and in the definitions, where given, of "kinds". The single
WRE>common feature is that "special creation", where active,
WRE>leaves no empirical residue for examination that would
WRE>distinguish it from ordinary evolutionary biology.
Bertvan:
Yes, I believe theists have shown an ability to accommodate their beliefs to
proven scientific reality. Are you disappointed that most "creationists"
accept that finches' beaks change shape, moths change color, and bacteria
develop immunity to antibiotics. The most important difference between
present-day neo Darwinists and "creationists" has been the Darwinist
insistence that evolutionary processes must be without plan, purpose or
design. To most people "design" in nature is obvious. However, it doesn't
seem to be design to which most Darwinist object. Most of them object to the
possibility of the existence of a designer. The question of whether a
designer exists should be irrelevant to science. Without that stumbling
block, "creationism" and "evolution could closely resemble each other. I'm
not sure the Darwinists will be as flexible as theists have proven to be.
.
WRE>I think it devalues the term "critic" to apply it to any
WRE>opponent of a concept regardless of their knowledge or lack
WRE>of same concerning the concept in question.
Bertvan:
You shouldn't reply to "critics" you don't consider worthy of the term. I
try not to.
Bertvan