Re: Johnson on Bible Answer Man

From: George Murphy (
Date: Sun Mar 16 2003 - 08:12:32 EST

  • Next message: Alexanian, Moorad: "RE: Johnson on Bible Answer Man"

    Jim Armstrong wrote:
    > I know this is not new turf, but it seems to me that the terms
    > microevolution and macroevolution are just a bit of sophistry (as is
    > perhaps contrasting "fact" with "assumption"). Those micro- and macro-
    > terms and the dividing line between them seem to be artifacts of the
    > evolution discussion and not descriptive of some well-defined stay-put
    > dividing line in nature. Calling a spade a spade, isn't the real issue
    > either the timeline (micro becomes macro with the passage of "enough"
    > time) or the special creation of man?

            But the micro-macro distinction serves an important purpose for creationists,
    IDers &c. It enables them to say that they're not opposed to evolution itself but only
    to the macro variety, and thus helps to shield them from the charge of being
            I know there's been a lot of debate about this among people a lot more
    knowledgeable than I in this area, but it seems to me that Darwin had it right in
    focussing on "the origin of _species_." _If_ there are "natural kinds" in biology, the
    category of species - defined as an isolated breeding population - can make the best
    claim to represent such a kind. & the critical question then is not about a vaguely
    defined micro-macro distinction but whether or not one evolutionary mechanism or another
    - & natural selection in particular - can give rise to new species.


    George L. Murphy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 16 2003 - 08:16:10 EST