From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Darwinism?
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:57:50 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <62899@mimsy.umd.edu> folta@cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes:
>
>        [much deleted]
>
>In Darwin On Trial, the reasoning is different:
>
>   Archaeopteryx ("old wing"), a fossil bird which appears in rocks estimated
>   to be 145 million years old, was discovered soon after the publication of
>   The Origin of Species, and it thus helped enormously to establish the
>   credibility of Darwinism and to discredit skeptics like Agassiz.
                   ^^^^^^^^^
>   Archaeopteryx is an impressive mosaic. The question is whether it is proof
>   of a reptile (dinosaur) to bird transition, or whether it is just one of
>   those odd variants, like the contemporary duck-billed platypus, that have
>   features resembling those of another class but are not transitional
>   intermediates in the Darwinian sense. ...
>                        ^^^^^^^^^
>   Archaeopteryx is on the whole a point for the Darwinists, but how important
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
>   is it? Persons who come to the fossil evidence as convinced Darwinists
                                                                ^^^^^^^
>   will see a stunning confirmation, but skeptics will see only a lonely
>   exception to a consistent pattern of fossil disconfirmation. If we are
>   testing Darwinism rather than merely looking for a confirming example or
            ^^^^^^^^^
>   two, then a single good candidate for ancestor status is not enough to save
>   a theory that posits a worldwide history of continual evolutionary
>   transformation.
>
>Wayne Folta          (folta@cs.umd.edu  128.8.128.8)

I'll apologize now for the shortness of this post, because I think the
subject is an important one to discuss.  Unfortunately, my account is at
work, and I need to be brief.

I notice that many of the anti-evolution, or doubting evolution post
here, and many of the arguments I hear in the real world :-) all mention
Darwin.  We don't place that much emphasis on his work, except in a
historical sense about where the concepts began to take shape, who
proposed what ideas and mechanisms first, etc.  But I find that
creationists and other doubters (I'm placing Wayne in that category)
always mention Darwin.  "Darwin's *theory* of evolution"  "Darwinists".
I think they get caught up in the idea that we blindly believe these
century old ideas, like we haven't tried to come up with a new idea or
something like that.  As "evolutionists", what is left with the concept
of evolution if we avoid talking about Darwin, or natural selection, or
any evolutionary mechanism?

The answer is the irrefutable (to most of us, Lionel, Ted, and the rest
of the Creationists) evidence in biochemistry, comparitive anatomy,
paleontology, biology, and a few more (I don't have time to come up with
a complete list).  Whenever I argue against creationism, I start off by
saying that Darwin is irrelevant.  It is unnecessary to mention Darwin
or natural selection when proving the existence of evolution.  The
fossil record is the most obvious evidence for evolution.  It was only
when people started to try to figure out the mechanism, did we need a
"theory" to explain the MECHANISM, not the EXISTENCE of evolution.

I would suggest that you take away the great argument of creationists
and agree that Darwin is unimportant.  When they say Darwin's work was
flawed, say "We don't believe Darwin either, but the physical evidence
is irrefutable that the makeup of the biosphere has changed through
time."  They can't disagree with that.  It's changing as we speak.  The
questions then are focused on the magnitude of changes and the time scale,
Eventually, the mechanism for change can be discussed.  This is assuming
that an honest discussion can happen with these people.

Let's leave Darwin out of it.  He's getting tired of being dragged
through the mud.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.origins