>
>
>"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
>
>Dear David,
>
>You wrote:
>
>> I here apologize for deviating somewhat from your original philosophical
>>string, but your mention that "the scientific concept of evolutionary
>>development [is] empirically warranted'' is so much on target with a
>>related interest of my own that I hope you might allow this intrusion.
>
>> Namely, I have for a number of years been seeking examples of verifiable
>>'empirical' evidence establishing biological evolution as 'scientific'
>>... but with little (no) success. Upon reading your above statement it
>>appears you may be aware of such evidence. Please do briefly describe
>>specific examples you feel properly qualifies as empirical evidence
>>confirming the reality of (macro) evolution to assist me in my search.
>
> Van Till replies:
>
> The whole of the body of scientific literature, along with the
>evaluation of that literature by persons whose training and experience
>qualifies them to do that evaluation, provides the warrant of which I
>speak.
>
>
> If you demand a short list of 'verifiable' examples--isolated from that
>whole body of scientific literature and its evaluation by the
>professional scientific community--that will suffice to convince a person
>who begins with a skeptical attitude, then you will probably be
>disappointed. It would be something like saying to a forest ranger, "I
>doubt that forests exist, but show me a tree that proves the existence of
>the forest and I'll believe in the existence of the forest." In reality,
>you just have to see a major portion of forest in order to gain a sense of
>what a forest is.
>
>Following is a list of some of my publications if you are interested in
>seeing more of my approach and what leads me to it. (List not shown for
>brevity...DAB)
>
>Cordially,
>
>Howard Van Till
David Bradbury:
>While I admire the semantic picture drawn by your 'tree' and 'forest'
>analogy, its really not all that appropriate. Indeed, on quick reading,
>it appears more misleading than informative. Would it not be a better fit
>to identify the skeptic as one well acquainted with 'trees' (from prior
>experience and textbook definitions), finding himself in the middle of a
>horizon to horizon grassland and being informed by a resident 'ranger'
>that he was surrounded by a 'forest'. Under these conditions, is it
>understandable and appropriate for him to ask the 'ranger' to please point
>out an example of what he considers a 'tree'?
This is really a very cute trick. You say "I don't believe in forests,
please show me one tree." Then when you are shown several trees you say
"But this is only x trees, not a forest. It is obvious that forests do not
exist and you are (because of your atheism) concealing that fact."
Recently, the WHO released an alert warning that antibiotics are becoming
more and more ineffective because of overuse and careless use.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/3a/20000614/co/who_issues_antibiotic_alert_2.html
the bacteria have evolved.
An if "macro"evolution doesn't exist, where are the Cambrian rabbits?
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 12:54:36 EDT