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

David:

> 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.

Common descent is simply the proposition that all organisms are related
by a process of descent with modification back in time to a common
ancestor (not a single organism but an ancestral group of primitive
cells). This pattern can be visualized as a many branching tree or
bush with the trunk in the deep past. Common descent does not say
anything about mechanism. In fact there are many proposed and
documented evolutionary mechanisms, the relative importance of which
are issues of intense research and discussion.

But, the essence of biological evolution is common descent. It is also
the genealogical relatedness of all living things that is the primary
focus of attack by those who see evolution as a threat to their faith.
This is particularly true in the area of human evolution.

While there are a very few ID supporters who accept common descent
(Behe being one), most do not. Virtually all of the public support for
ID is from those who oppose common descent. Where individuals place
the discontinuities in the history of life varies widely -- from two or
three interventions (special creations), to the special creation of
every species. ID as argued in the public square is essentially an
argument for discontinuity in the history of life. To say that a
particular structure or event could not have been produce by the action
of any possible series of cause-and-effect processes is to argue for
special creation and a break in the continuity of life's history. I am
not here talking about divine guidance and direction of natural
processes, which is in no conflict with an evolutionary view of life
history.

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 Fri Jan 13 11:36:59 2006