Re: [asa] ICR for May, 2007

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Fri May 11 2007 - 14:58:36 EDT

I think the argument is generally not that it's impossible, but
improbable. But that improbability posit simply ignores the immensities
of both the universe and its time scales.
If these immensities were truly grasped to any degree, it has seemed to
me that any declaration of improbability recedes into terminal frailty.
You are of course right about the sliding line of demarcation between
micro and macro evolution. That flexibility also helps with the
transitional form problem, because any form that is identified is almost
axiomatically excluded from candidacy as a transitional form.

JimA

David Campbell wrote:

>> But George, the age business is a linchpin in the evolution argument.
>> If an
>> old age is accepted, then the (synthetic) differentiation between
>> micro and
>> macro-evolution essentially goes away. JimA
>
>
> A lot of ID folks accept old age but reject "macroevolution", so I
> don't think that's widely accepted. The argument is not that there
> hasn't been time for macroevolution but that macroevolution is
> impossible. Since in this context macroevolution is typically
> "evolution I don't believe in" and microevolution is "evolution I
> accept", the target can be shifted as needed to avoid accepting
> macroevolution.
>
> Of course, there are plenty of specific claims (e.g., one species has
> never been seen forming from another) that can be disproven.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 11 14:58:58 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 11 2007 - 14:58:58 EDT