Of Baramins and Baloney 5

November 30, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

[An email conversation begun
Oct 19, 2008]

 Mark,

Civil dialog is the most important thing we can agree upon.
Anything else that may come I’ll consider a bonus.  I have begun our dialog
posts at AcademicFreedomBlog. You threw a lot at me in your last email. I’ll
start with the “obvious variations” of organisms in your original comment: I am
not denying the existence of variation. That is why I brought in the dog
examples. Variation is rampant. The question posed by baraminology is, “Is there
a clear boundary between variations.” You ask if I “have evidence of clear and
unchanging boundaries.” Perhaps you have not thought of the Cambrian explosion
in that light. (Now, don’t stop reading, just because you are so familiar with
this that it no longer leaves you with wonder.) You know that
every major body plan (link requires “Quicktime”) known today (plus many we
don’t have today) are found in the
Burgess shale and Chengjiang Deposits. We can’t just say the fossil record is not complete,
because these fossils are in great detail, including soft body parts and
organisms with no hard parts, and though there are
many duplications across these deposits, there is no ancestral fossil record
of transitional forms across most body plans. I am not here arguing that this is
conclusive of instant creation, but I do suggest it is sufficient evidence to
investigate further, which is all that science should require.

You give two reasons for not giving origins the same chance
would give eastern medicine: “1) It does not require a supernatural explanation.
2) It is testable by modern scientific methods.” I suggest that the first is the
sum of the objection for the far, far majority of objectors. If the first were a
consideration, the second would not be an issue. Let me put that another way. If
the first were not the stopping point, then they would be able to entertain the
possibility of scientific method being applied to the hypotheses. If what I am
saying is true, then the objections are actually on religious grounds, not
scientific ones.

This leads to your third paragraph–Are reputations in
jeopardy for even considering non-traditional explanations of origins? You write
off Sternberg and Gonzalez. I believe there is room for discussion there, but
let’s get personal. I don’t think you can talk me out of believing
what happened to me. And the scenario I gave you in my last email was not
hypothetical. A friend of mine was “black-balled” from his position as editor of
the Alabama Geological Newsletter for contacting a scientist and suggesting that
his submission on slow deposition of coal should be “balanced” with one from a
quick-deposit perspective. No evidence was ever considered in his case either,
just what his position was and whom he quoted. Since he was a creationist, no
further evidence was needed. At this point I can only lay my hands on the first
page of that person’s email to all members of the society, and I have blocked
out the names of the sources of this information.

I hope in the future we can deal with one issue at a time,
so our letters don’t get too cumbersome and too spaced.

Don Mc

Which of these issues would have the highest priority for you?

Posted in Science and faith | 1 Comment »