|
MARK L. BAKKE'S
  Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.0 Last Update: 24 Oct 99 Return to "Evolution vs. Creationism" essay Back to Philosophy page Please feel free to E-mail me with your own comments on this issue or on anything else included in my Philosophy of Life section. Debate is good!
Please report any problems with this page to the
Webmaster!
|
|
REPLY #40 TO
"EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM"
Boldfaced statements are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
 Italicized/emphasized comments prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited. My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text and are prefaced by my initials (MB). (R) With regard to outdated evolutionary theories I was referring to traditional Darwinian evolutionary theory evolving into the notion of "punctuated equilibrium". (MB)What you're referring to as "traditional Darwinian evolutionary theory" in this context is properly called "gradualism" and is not the centerpiece of Darwin's work. That centerpiece would be "natural selection". This could occur either via a gradualistic process or through the process described by punctuated equilibrium. Therefore, it is not correct to say that Darwin's theories have evolved into punctuated equilibrium. Darwin's major theories are still going strong. (R) It has never been observed that variations in the gene pool of a species over time is anything other than just that,variatons within a species such as an insects resistance to pesticide etc. (MB)This is incorrect. There are many documented cases of observed speciation. Perhaps you could check out the Talk.Origins web site (http://www.talkorigins.org) to read several documents which present the proof for this. (R) For evoultion to be considered factual it needs to account for the transition from one species of lifeform to another. (MB)Since this has already happened, there should be no reason for further dispute. (R) However all known lifeforms are perfect in themselves,self contained if you will,sharing comman design features but to conclude they therefore share a comman heritage is theory only. (MB)On what basis is any lifeform "perfect"? There are hundreds of demonstrable flaws in the construction of a human being, for example. (R) So long as evolution is promoted as one of several theories of origins that is fine. To go further is just dogmatic. (MB)Why is it "dogmatic" to present the facts? Also, you need to understand that evolution is *not* a "theory of origins". This is a common mistake made by people who believe that they must dispute evolution for whatever reason. Evolution is the set of theories that describe what has happened to life of Earth *after* it first appeared. In other words, evolution did not produce life. Life diversifies through evolution. I really can't see why some people believe that God and evolution are incompatible. It is possible that evolution is God's mechanism for producing the diversity of life that we witness daily. Evolution theories have absolutely nothing to say about whether or not there is a God (*any* form of "God") or what that God may or may not be capable of doing.
Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.0 .......... Last Update: 24 Oct 99
E-mail: mlbakke1@bakkster.com Earthlink Network Home Page |