Debate over evolution from Re: Stereotypes and reputations

>> How convincing is the evidence for each type of E?
>> no scientists (including yeCs) disagree with micro-E;

Except when antievolutionists do disagree with it in a general attempt
to slander evolution (e.g., the ill-founded attacks on the peppered
moth). Also, there is the problem of defining microevolution and
macroevolution. In evolutionary biology, macroevolution refers to the
idea that different factors are in effect in species-level and higher
evolutionary events than just the everyday accumulation of small
mutations. Thus, someone who believes that, over time, the everyday
accumulation of small mutations is adequate to account for all
evolution might reject macroevolution while accepting abiogenesis,
universal common descent, and a total lack of intelligent involvement
in the process. However, in the usage of young earth and intelligent
design advocates, "microevolution" is evolution I accept and
"macroevolution" is evolution I reject. Not only is this not very
useful nor objectively testable, but also it is conducive to the
confusion of vastly different concepts (e.g., the frequent invocation
of Behe as proof that species can't evolve).

>> yeCs (but not oeCs) disagree with basic fossil progressions;

Young earth advocates sometimes try to explain the progression of
fossils in the geologic record as reflecting stages in the progressing
of a global flood, but sometimes deny it as a lie made up by
evolutionists. Neither match geological or historical reality, and it
is particularly unconvincing when both arguments are used together. I
don't think I have seen the claim made, but some progressions in the
fossil record might be accepted by YECS as reflecting the post-ark
radiations within a "kind". I suspect Kurt Wise tends toward such a
view, as he has grouped, e.g., most of the fossil horse lineages into a
single "kind."

On the other hand, those old earthers who claim that species cannot
evolve from other species reject the fossil progressions as examples of
common descent.

>> But are there no reasons -- none at all? -- to wonder about Total
>> Macro-E?

Two issues:
1) does Total Macro-E involve the philosophical claim of no divine
involvement, or does it include the option that God was sovereign over
a process that fully obeyed natural laws, with no intervention-style
action?
2) does wondering about it require positive evidence of an
intervention-style gap, or just the existence of things that are
unexplained, or just a sense that there might be something else despite
apparently good explanations?

----------------------------------------
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama, Box 870345
Tuscaloosa AL 35487
"James gave the huffle of a snail in
danger But no one heard him at all" A.
A. Milne
Received on Sat Jul 30 15:54:56 2005