Re: Evolution's Imperative

Bodester (
Sat, 27 Mar 1999 12:47:25 -0500 (EST)

>There are lots of things we do not yet understand about gravity or
>lightning or tornadoes or cancer or....etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
>Should we therefore state that these too cannot be considered fact? The
>problem is that you miss one of the most basic points about science:
>first you recognize the phenomenon, then you try to explain it.
>Evolution, even so-called "macroevolution", is a readily observable
>phenomenon. Any observable phenomenon can be considered to be a fact;
>hence evolution is a fact.

Except that I disagree that macro evolution is a phenomenon and observable
as you say. I understand that basic point about science. I disagree with
your connection between it and evolution.(macro) And if it's so readily
observable, again, start posting pictures of transitions that have been
found. I'm not aware there are any, correct me (with proof) if I'm wrong.

>Except that any perusal of the archive of this listserv, plus the
>scientific literature, would prove them {creationists} wrong.

I disagree with that as well. Both sides are able to claim that the other
twists evidence to fit with their respective hypotheses. I think if you
look through many discussions of this topic, some observations are used by
both sides against the other, depending on interpretations of what the
observation could imply.

>Cute thing about that, though......
Actually, I would say that's a good example of creationists being
scientific and changing their views, whether or not they publicly admit to
incorrect conceptions in the past is a different issue IMHO.

Just some thoughts.


Jason Bode