>Reflectorites
>
>Again, apologies this is late.
>
>On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 08:48:15 -0600, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>CC>I meant that you blindly quoted it without checking to see if the passage
>>> >you quoted was in fact *true*.
>
>>SJ>As I pointed out to Chris, it seems that what Kelly said *was*
>>true, about:
>>>"Despite a close watch, we have WITNESSED no new species emerge in the
>wild
>>>in recorded history." (Kelly K., "Out of Control," 1995, p.475. My emphasis)
>
>SC>it actually is *not* true. It was not true when Kelly wrote it. Kelly's
>>book was published in 1995 and the study I cite below was done in 1990.
>>This is quoted from "Finding Darwin's God" by Ken Miller which I strongly
>>recommend to Stephen and everyone else on this list.
>>
>>--------------
>>Rhizosolina is a genus of diatoms, single-celled photosynthetic organisms
>>that produce intricate and distinctive silicate cell walls. When their
>>owners die, these glass-like walls fall to the ocean floor and produce a
>>sediment so dense that it can be mined as a diatomacious earth (and used as
>>a filtering matrix for swimming pools). Two distinct species, Rhizosolemia
>>praedbergonii and Rhizosolenia bergonii, are known from sediments dating to
>>1.7 millions years ago. If we trace these species backwards in time, we
>>gather data that duplicate, with uncanny precision, Darwin's drawing of
>>speciation.
>>
>>Beginning at 3.3 million years before the present, we can see the
>>increasing range of diversity of the ancestral species, leading to a
>>broadening at 2.9 million years that splits into two distinct lineages in
>>less than 200,000 years. The continuous deposition of diatom shells has
>>provided a complete record covering nearly 2 million years. Thomas Cronin
>>and Cynthia Schneider, who reported this study, were lucky enough to find a
>>speciation event right in the middle of their data.
>>
>>T.M. Cronin and C. E. Schneider, "Climatic Influences on Species: Evidence
>>from the Fossil Record," Trends in Evolutionary Biology and Ecology 5
> >(1990): 275-279.
>Stephen:
>Talk about "blindly quoted"! Susan needs to read Kelly's quote again, in
>particular his words: 1) "witnessed"; and 2) "recorded history".
>
>No one is doubting that new species have emerged in the past. What Kelly
>was claiming is that no one has actually *observed* new species emerging
>in the wild.
Susan:
there are new modern species that have been observed in the wild.
However, I thought Kelly was talking about witnessing the actual
event.
I think now I must ask why did you post his quote? What was your point?
>[...]
>
>SC>It is just not a good idea to stake the veracity of your religion on
>>continued human ignorance. It's not a good bet. Your God either created the
> >universe and everything in it--including evolution--or he did not.
>
>Stephen:
>The point is that if there is a God who created, then He could have done a
>whole lot more than creating evolution. The necessary starting point of
>naturalistic evolution is that either there is no God, or if there
>is, He never
>intervened in the history of life to do any more creating.
Susan:
That's not true. The starting point is the *observations* of what is
going on in the world. When Darwin stepped foot on the Beagle he was
a believing Christian. He made his first observations as a believing
Christian. There are simply too many believing Christians who also
believe in evolution for your point above to hold any water. Kenneth
Miller is one of them. He believes that evolution is necessary to
Christianity, that Christianity *requires* naturalistic evolution
because of the doctrine of free will. We are a part of nature. If we
are to be free to choose between good and evil, then nature has to be
free also. Obviously an omnipotent God *could* intervene in the
history of life, just as an omnipotent God could have intervened in
the Holocaust, but does not because we must be free to find our own
way.
>SC>Saying
> >that "science doesn't know X therefore my religion is true!" hurts science
>>not at all and is devastating to your religion when ignorance becomes
>>knowledge.
>
>Stephen:
>I don't say "science doesn't know X therefore my religion is true!" I have
>stated many times that I would have no problem with my religion if
>evolution was true. In fact for about 15 years as a Christian I believed that
>evolution was probably true and just God's means of creating.
>
>To me the question is: *is* evolution (i.e. 100% naturalistic evolution)
>true?
Susan:
evolution is supported by the evidence as well as any other
scientific theory and better than some. You keep bringing up out of
context quotes and silly stuff like the reptile eggs as your "proof"
that evolution isn't true or has "problems" but I think your entire
skepticism is based on this false belief: "The necessary starting
point of naturalistic evolution is that either there is no God, or
if there is, He never intervened in the history of life to do any
more creating."
>SC>I'd suggest you drop that line of debate but that's the gist of
>>all creationist arguments isn't it? "If evolution is true then my religion
>>is destroyed, therefore evolution must be proved to be false at all costs."
>
>Stephen: See above. I never took that "line" in the first place.
Susan:
yes you do: "The necessary starting point of naturalistic evolution
is that either there is no God, or if there is, He never intervened
in the history of life to do any more creating."
>Stephen: That is why almost every Biology textbook starts its
>section on evolution
>with a strawman debunking of the Christian doctrine of creation. There is
>no other science that feels the need to do that.
Susan:
"almost every"? I own several and none of them start that way. What
are the odds!?!
>
>Stephen: This is something curious that Berthajane, a non-Christian,
>has pointed out.
>The Christians try to talk about the evidence for evolution and the
>evolutionists often counter with evidence against Christianity!
Susan:
gosh, nobody mentioned Christianity in their refutation of your
reptile egg post, just lots of science. Perhaps you should attack
the evidence for evolution more often. There might end up being a lot
more science in the posts!
Susan
-- ----------I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction.
---Charles Darwin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 05 2000 - 11:23:37 EST