Re: [asa] Dawkins on the fossil record

From: Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com>
Date: Tue Dec 01 2009 - 21:23:22 EST

Hi Terry,

"While I don't necessarily disagree with Mike and Ted in their reference to
Kuhn and all, and I suspect that Dawkins himself wouldn't disagree, the main
point is that there is NO ANOMALY. Not a single one. That's the main
question I'm asking here. Are there any anomalies with respect to this
particular issue? The closest thing to one that I can think of is the
question of stratiographic inversions. But once the possibility of an
inversion is allowed, it's no longer an anomaly. A far cry from Ptolemaic
epicycles."

Agreed. I was just pointing out that I would not consider evolution
disproven or falsified if someone found some bones in the precambrian that
looked rabbit-like. In fact, I doubt any scientist would, at least after
giving it a little thought. (Dawkins is wrong when he claims, "Evolution
could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong
date order.") Thus, while Haldane's point is a handy counter to a common
creationist talking-point, it's really about rhetoric and not science.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
To: "AmericanScientificAffiliation" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins on the fossil record

> Hi,
>
> This is a funny group to interact with, I must admit. It seems that
> Michael Roberts is the only one to get the point.
>
> While I don't necessarily disagree with Mike and Ted in their reference to
> Kuhn and all, and I suspect that Dawkins himself wouldn't disagree, the
> main point is that there is NO ANOMALY. Not a single one. That's the main
> question I'm asking here. Are there any anomalies with respect to this
> particular issue? The closest thing to one that I can think of is the
> question of stratiographic inversions. But once the possibility of an
> inversion is allowed, it's no longer an anomaly. A far cry from Ptolemaic
> epicycles.
>
> As for John's question about common ancestry, I have to say that the
> sentence was added in order to preclude some objections that I've heard on
> the list from several folks, that many who reject Darwinian evolution are
> still comfortable with common descent. I'm taking common descent the way
> that Steve Martin did. It's possible that a "special creationist" event
> (e.g. injection of information) would be required in order to go from
> ancestor to descendent--as he points out, this is consistent with some ID
> advocates. Whether you want to call this common descent is a matter of
> semantics. I am willing to call that common descent. For example, my own
> view of human origins allows for common descent of our biological form,
> but I believe a special creative act is required for our full humanity in
> the image of God (say, in the creation of the human soul).
>
> The point remains. There are no exceptions in the fossil record to the
> canonical common descent sequence.
>
> In Chapter 4 Dawkins points out that the common YEC model, that fossils
> were laid down in the flood and their sequence reflects the organism's
> ability to flee the encroaching flood waters, would at best produce a
> statistical distribution in the fossil record rather than the
> exceptionless pattern that we find.
>
> TG
>
> ________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department
> Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, CO 80523
> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.426 / Virus Database: 270.14.88/2538 - Release Date: 12/01/09
07:59:00

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 1 21:23:41 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 01 2009 - 21:23:41 EST