From: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:31:36 GMT
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose

In article <01Ij027vcbQN00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> Jim Loucks writes:
> [...] some support gradualism, while others are proponents of punctuated
> equilibria. The latter of which I fail to see the difference between
> Goldschmidt's hopeful monster concept and evidence for creation.

I think I've explained this to you before.  Was there something you
didn't like or didn't understand in my previous explanation?

There are several very large differences between the version of creation
which the ICR holds (I guess your own version is relatively close to
this) and any form of punctuated equilibria.  Consider the age of the
earth; whether the differing "periods" in the fossil record represent
different time; how long ago the first life appeared; whether all "kinds"
of life appeared in one seven-day interval or new ones appeared over time;
whether new "kinds" only appear when similar ones already exist; whether
the fossil record shows high-level "evolutionary" trends or not.

There are those who qualify as "anti-evolutionists" (or "creationists"),
who accept that the earth is old and that new "kinds" of life appeared
over time (basically, they accept the geologic column).  I guess they
believe these "kinds" were special creations which didn't depart too far
from existing creatures.  *That* brand of creationism is at least in tune
with the evidence, though I don't find it intellectually satisfying.

> How can a theory be falsified if it is so generalized that it can
> explain any conceivable type of evidence?

I'd say you are mistaken about the "meaning" of PE/gradualist debates
(and I think this, too, has been explained before).  This is somewhat
simplified:

PE types argue that separations between closely related species (a "gap"
which the ICR would probably accept as bridged by "micro-evolution")
usually happen in a manner that does not lend to the transition's being
captured in the fossil record.  Either it happens very quickly (i.e., a
hundred thousand to a million years), or it happens in small, isolated
populations which are much less likely to be represented in the record.

Gradualist types argue that it is not the speciation mechanism, but the
spotty nature of the fossil record, which generally leaves these low-level
gaps.  They point to places where the fossil record is very detailed (very
fine resolution in time, and a type of creature which fossilizes very
well), where a gradual evolution can be seen to take place.  (PE types
would counter that this sort of evolution *can* occur, but that it is
the exception rather than the rule.)

So, both of these groups are in solid agreement of what the fossil record
contains -- speciation events are rarely preserved, but "evolutionary
trends" are quite apparent at higher taxonomic levels.  Their disagreement
in regard to the fossil record is over *why* species-species separations
are rarely preserved (their real disagreement is over the tempo and mode
of evolution).

But the creationists' disagreement with the fossil record is over the
origin of higher taxa -- a point in which the gradualist and PE types are
in solid agreement.  John Morris proposes evolution of  100 originally
created dinosaur "kinds" into 600+ genera in the two thousand years
between the creation and the flood.  Morris apparently has no trouble
with evolution far beyond the level of "gaps" argued about in the
gradualist/PE debate.  And he says it can happen orders of magnitude
faster than "evolutionists" would claim.

For this reason, the PE/gradualist debate is of no help to the claim that
the fossil record supports creationism.  The "evidence" which is central
to the debate is at a completely different level than the "evidence" which
the ICR wishes to cast aspersions upon.  A "gaps is gaps" argument
(reminiscent of that chicken commercial) relies on generating confusion
between these two levels.

> What good is it to science if it's not falsifiable?

Good question.  What does the ICR have to say when you ask _them_?  :-)

Actually, I do have a question for you to ask the next time you talk to
the ICR.  Since I am in the process of organizing an age-of-the-earth
debate with them, I am "persona non grata" at the moment in regard to
getting information from them.
-- 
Chris Stassen			408-943-0630			stassen@alc.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins