Re: The El Tajon situation [was Judge Jones sided]

*However, none of these issues brings into question common descent, and that
is the core issue....Common descent itself is not the topic of any serious
debate.*

Keith (and others) -- I'm trying to get a better handle on what people mean
when they use various terms in discussions like this. When you say "common
descent," are you referring to (a) what happens (organisms change over time
and later organisms are related to earlier ones); or (b) how it happens; or
(c) both. My impression has been that there is general agreement in the
scientific community on (a), but that there continues to be substantial
debate about (b). I'm not so sure that (a) is the "core issue" in arguments
about design, though it can be an issue; it seems to me the core issue is
(b). Or am I way off base? Thanks.

On 1/11/06, Keith Miller <kbmill@ksu.edu> wrote:
> Ted wrote:
>
> > (1) Pim, my very strong impression is that for 150 years (longer,
> > actually,
> > these debates predate Darwin), there has been serious disagreement
> > (including very heated debate at some times and places) among the
> > experts
> > themselves, about how precisely to interpret the fossil record:
> > continuity
> > vs discontinuity? gradualism vs catastrophism or quasi-catastrophism
> > (here I
> > think recently of Gould and Eldredge)? full randomness (Gould) or
> > front-loaded order (Conway Morris)?
>
> However, none of these issues brings into question common descent, and
> that is the core issue.
> Also, the modern debates do not bear much resemblance to ones of the
> last century. The debates
> today focus on the relative importance of various known and
> demonstrated evolutionary mechanisms
> at different time scales. The debate is within the strongly supported
> framework of common descent.
> Common descent itself is not the topic of any serious debate.
>
> > These questions are not resolved today,
> > they've been on the table for a long time. If Phil Johnson has doubts
> > about
> > the standard answers for religious reasons, he's entitled to them. But
> > there are lots of secular conversations one can discuss that also
> > raise some
> > of the same questions. Denton's book, one of the two that inspired
> > Johnson
> > to write Darwin on Trial (the other one was Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker)
> > is a
> > completely secular book--are we to say that Denton's misgivings (or
> > those of
> > Conway Morris or Gould) about the standard picture are just out of
> > bounds,
> > b/c they give succor to creationists?
>
> But, Denton's first book (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) is filled with
> misleading and simply false assertions
> and conclusions. These errors have been pointed out by many. Denton's
> arguments against common descent
> in that book are invalid.
>
>
> >
> > (2) I don't know, Pim, why is the origin of life so often talked
> > about--in
> > terms of Miller's experiments and the like--in biology texts? Darwin
> > of
> > course begged off on this question, quite wisely, but many scienitsts
> > don't
> > beg off, they believe that chemical evolution of some sort took place.
> > And
> > they often believe this for a priori reasons that amount IMO to
> > religious
> > convictions. Oparin was a lovely example of this very point, about
> > which he
> > was quite explicit.
>
> The origin of life is a very interesting and challenging area of
> research. It is also one that has advanced far beyond
> the work of Miller and Oparin. I was privileged to attend a Gordon
> Conference on the Origin of Life last January, and
> I was amazed at how far research had progressed in addressing some
> previously seemingly intractable problems
> (such as homochirality). My point here is that the science of the
> origin of life is advancing apace. It is not at all static
> or unproductive.
>
> Also, the validity of biological evolution (common descent) is not at
> all tied to the successful solution of the origin of life.
> It is entirely reasonable given our current state of knowledge (both
> positive and negative) that a very plausible solution
> will be found to the origin of life. However, even if no scientific
> solution is ever found to the origin of life, that can in no
> way impact the vast amount of evidence that continues to accumulate in
> support of common descent.
>
> Keith
>
>
> Keith B. Miller
> Research Assistant Professor
> Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
> Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
> 785-532-2250
> http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 12 21:20:58 2006