Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders



At 07:00 -0500 8/25/05, Brian Whatcott wrote:

Forgive me for pointing it out: but the fact that Hugh is willing to
believe in perceived features of science fields outside his area
of expertise, and, for example, believe that the stratigraphic
evidence is always clear-cut, places him on the same plane as the IDists,
and subject to the same discreditation, when someone turns up
the instances of stratigraphic reversal, which not surprisingly
result from severe folding and/or erosion.

Here, the temporal progression with layers is, surprise, surprise,
reversed. In a word, over simplify the evidence to a just-so story,
at your own risk!

I don't think I have put myself on the same plane with anyone, either
ID'er or paleontologist. I pointed out that the paleontologists
believe that they have the evidence to support their contentions, but
that I am not a sufficient expert to give authoritative support to
their contentions. That the strata have been convoluted by geologic
processes is clear. But it is also clear that that convolution can be
traced and understood, and that there have been no cases discovered
where overlying older layers cannot be traced to folding and twisting
of the layers by those geologic processes. If such evidence were
found, it would be a serious problem for the consistency of the
various age-dating methods, but as yet, to my knowledge, no such
evidence has been found. Radiologic dating has not been found to be
inconsistent with stratigraphic dating--what it has done is put the
geologic base on the same scale as the calendar, so that we can put
numbers on what the geologists had only been able to give names to.

That I am not an expert in paleontology does not mean that I cannot
appreciate the nature of the evidence they put forth. the problem is
that the ID folks have not put forth any evidence *for* their
hypothesis, only purported evidence *against* evolution, all of which
has so far been shown to be bogus.

I am not claiming that evolution is the final theory of how species
change with time, only that it is the best and most complete one that
we have to date. That species *do* change with time, for whatever
reason seems to me to be incontrovertible. That is an observation and
not a conclusion. The issue is how it comes about. The "controversy"
is over the mechanism by which it happens, and the two sides are
divided over the issue of evidence.

I don't think that taking a stand on what the evidence tells me puts
my position on a par with that of the ID supporters. Quite the
contrary.

Hugh
--

Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Never ask someone what computer they use. If they use a Mac, they
will tell you. If not, why embarrass them?
--Douglas Adams
******************************************************