On Saturday 13 April 2002 06:12, you wrote: > Trent wrote: > > The quasi-creationist admitted that: > > > > 1) Evolution occurs, because descent with modification through > > natural > > > selection has been observed, especially in microbes. > > > > 2) Despite the abundant evidence of modification, no speciation > > through > > > natural selection has been observed. > > > > 3) Therefore, the idea that evolution drives speciation is, at best, > > a theory. > > > As near as I can tell he's @#$% right. > > No one alive today has observed Julius Caesar, either. Nonetheless, > we are able to confirm his existence through secondary sources. > > It's a bogus argument, and one that depends entirely upon mildly > clever word-twisting. > > Adam > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It might be bogus, but not because it relies on word-play. A better analogy would be that while there is abundant evidence that HIV causes aids, it is still *possible* that HIV is a *symptom* caused by something else. But, given available evidence HIV is very, very, very much the preferred suspect. In the case of evolution, there is no direct evidence that it *causes* speciation. However, there are also no other viable suspects. Now a creationist will say, aha, there is another, indeed more probable suspect, namely God. The problem is that science doesn't know about this God thing. "Assume God did it." Is not science, its theology. Even if we posit a science that allows for "God did it," that really doesn't get us anywhere. We are still left with "how?" In the case of speciation it is particularly problematic because it is *very* clear that species are not immutable, so an appeal to the miraculous is no more allowable than in the case of human growth and development. One can hold that growth and development are miraculous, but not in the same sense as the resurection of Lazerus. If speciation is miraculous it is in the same category as growth and development, as a quotditan miracle that must be regarded as amenable to reasoned inquiry.
