Re: [asa] Definition of evolution

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Fri Oct 30 2009 - 15:37:53 EDT

Heya all,

One problem I have with these sorts of conversations is what I feel is a
tendency to exaggerate the importance of evolution. In part because so often
the replies that emphasize the practical utility of evolution tends to focus
on the aspects of it that even the most determined YEC can accept
(antibiotics resistance, etc), or otherwise. Another problem is when
evolution is presented on the same footing as (say) general quantum physics,
or Maxwell's equations - which I think Alexanian does a good job of
responding to.

Isn't it possible that evolution is at the same time true, yet at the same
time obviously quite different from (and yes, less tangible than) the other
physical theories it's so often compared to? Better yet, isn't it possible
that evolution is true, but is not nearly as "deserving" of all the time and
attention given to it? I can't help but feel proper perspective was lost a
long time ago on this issue, on all sides.

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Alexanian, Moorad <>wrote:

> Maxwell’s equations summarize a whole set of experimental results. In
> particular, his contribution indicated that time varying electric fields
> produce magnetic fields, which propagate in vacuum with the speed of light.
> Thus Maxwell established that light is an electromagnetic phenomena.
> Subsequently, Hertz created electromagnetic fields in the lab with
> properties satisfied by light itself. The same can be said of Ohm’s law
> regarding its experimental basis. However, classical electromagnetic theory
> failed at the atomic level and it was supplanted by quantum electrodynamics
> (QED).
> You are quite right that without the experimental content of Maxwell’s
> equation there would be hardly any new electrical device. In fact, if
> Faraday’s law of induction would cease to be true, there would be nothing
> like generators, electrical motors, etc. We would be back to the Stone Age.
> Please, tell me what would not be true and of tremendous consequence if the
> whole of evolutionary theory were to be shown to be false? Please, do not
> tell me that I would not exist since you have never shown that man was a
> predication of evolutionary theory. In addition, is there anything that
> would supplant evolutionary theory if it were to be shown to be wrong, just
> as QED replaced classical electromagnetic theory?
> Moorad
> ________________________________
> From: [] On Behalf Of
> Dave Wallace []
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 12:43 PM
> Cc: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] Definition of evolution
> Jim Armstrong wrote:
> Stateside, this particular usage of "supposed" has a dismissive or
> belittling nuance. It says essentially that an assertion you may make with
> confidence is only a less unsubstantial supposition in my view. JimA
> [Friend of ASA]
> Or as anti evolutionists would put it, 'Only a Theory'. To which I reply
> that Ohm's law and Maxwell's equations etc are only a theories upon which a
> lot of the modern world of electronics is built.
> Dave W
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 30 15:38:43 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 30 2009 - 15:38:43 EDT