Re: It's the Bible or evolution

From: Cornelius Hunter <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Thu Sep 29 2005 - 19:42:30 EDT

> Cornelius Hunter writes:
>
> Dick, no one is making this confusion. Of course evolution has sub
> theories
> that are not claimed to be facts. But the overarching idea, that
> naturalistic processes are sufficient to explain all the species, is
> essentially universally claimed to be a fact.
>
> Ted responds:
> In Ken Miller's testimony Monday, much time was spent on this very point.
> Miller repeatedly called evolution a "theory," not a "fact." In fact (my
> deliberate choice of phrase), "facts" are more likely to change than
> "theories", according to Miller. Theories organize facts into larger
> explanations. Evolution, heliocentrism, gravitation, germ theory, atomic
> theory--Miller identified these as examples of theories. None of them has
> been shown to be absolute truth,

This is irrelevant. The consensus position is not that evolution is truth,
but a "fact" in the sense that heliocentrism, gravity, etc are facts. Miller
is mixing terminology.

he made clear, but all have empirically
> verified and verifiable consequences. For evolution, he gave several such
> examples, esp the recent discovery of pseudogenes in identical locations
> for
> humans and some other primates--a "fact" that favors the "theory" of
> evolution

It does *not* favor evolution.

over a theory of a common design plan, since the genes have no
> known functions and thus a designer would have no reason to give them to
> all
> of these organisms.
>
> ted
>
Received on Thu Sep 29 19:46:17 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 29 2005 - 19:46:18 EDT