Point One - Creation versus Macroevolution

First, it is true that the majority of scientists of every discipline believe macroevolution to be true. For most of them, that doesn't enter in to their particular field of research. I am in the opposing camp, a small one, but one that includes some very brilliant and capable scientists. (disclaimer - The ID list is of scientists who agreed with this statement - “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” ) It would be more gracious of macroevolutionists if they would cease the propaganda campaign trying to configure creationists as cranks. Cranks believe the world is flat, or that the UFO's are coming to get us soon, or other ludicrous beliefs. Creationism has been the belief of some of the great scientists of all time and has never been disproved, it has just become unpopular. I find it interesting that so many macroevolutionists go to great lengths to portray creationists as whacked-out pseudo-scientists with no credentials. Is this a way to stop the discussion before it is begun?

Creeper responds - There seems to be some general confusion here. First of all, I have to ask you something that I've asked before and you may have written off as a flippant remark:

What is a macroevolutionist?

And on the heels of that: what is macroevolution?

You seem to have plugged this in to use instead of "Darwinism", which is a likewise foggy term, and in different debates can be taken to mean anything from general atheistic heathenism to quite specifically Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Macroevolution is large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. It stands opposed to YEC, which insists on variation within distinct kinds from the get-go.

What's important to grasp is that macroevolution simply refers to the evolution taking place and does not specify any mechanism. IDers, theistic evolutionists and naturalistic evolutionists can all agree that macroevolution did indeed take place. You can think of it as common descent, or the phylogenetic tree.

Common descent - or the mere observation that macroevolution did take place, by whatever mechanism - is accepted by the majority of scientists and just about universally by biologists. The opposing camp that you are in - the one that denies common descent - does not include the "very brilliant and capable scientists" that you link to. They signed a very different statement, one that does not deny or question common descent in any way. Not only is it such an incredibly vague and weakly worded statement that PZ Myers, Michael Ruse and Richard Dawkins could probably sign it in good faith, it is simply beside the point of macroevolution.

Try and get some scientists to sign something like: "We are skeptical of claims of common descent, and of a common ancestor for the different 'kinds' of life on our planet." - and see how far you get.


"On the other hand, macroevolutionists are correct in believing that if indeed there is a continuum of creatures from water to land, then "Tik" is closer to bridging that gap than any other fossil found. It is the closest thing to a transitional form yet discovered. It doesn't "prove" macroevolution to be true, but it is significant in that it is an expected find if macroevolution is true. As evidence it is definitely a blow for the macroevolutionary side of the fight. If macroevolution was able to be proved at some time in the future then a few more fossils like Tiktaalik would go a long way towards that end."

I've asked you this one before as well, but I'll try again: In what way would a transitional form be different from Tiktaalik, in your estimation? Let's see if you can answer this without a strawman.

The fact that scientists can look at the phylogenetic tree, predict roughly what organism will be between two different organisms, and in what strata it is most likely to be found (and where it will most definitely not be found) is a powerful confirmation of common descent. It also happens to falsify YEC and the notion of a recent global flood.


"I find it interesting that so many macroevolutionists go to great lengths to portray creationists as whacked-out pseudo-scientists with no credentials. Is this a way to stop the discussion before it is begun?"

After taking a quick glance at that thing about G A Wells you linked to above, I wonder if you were able to keep a straight face while typing that. Just about half of that little essay is devoted to an extended ad hominem regarding Wells' academic past. Is this a way to stop the discussion before it is begun?

"Creation science", like it or not, is on extremely shaky scientific ground, and has offered precious little in terms of testable hypotheses.


I would like to see a transitional form today, no macroevolutionist can produce one. However, in the fossil world I would have to say that the organism would have to be at least partially changed from one animal to another. Tiktaalik looks more like an amphibian, but it is not capable of walking and remains a fish. If we find a fish that has a bone structure of an amphibian so that it is in between both then I might see that as a transitional form.

"The fact that scientists can look at the phylogenetic tree, predict roughly what organism will be between two different organisms, and in what strata it is most likely to be found (and where it will most definitely not be found) is a powerful confirmation of common descent. It also happens to falsify YEC and the notion of a recent global flood."

The phylogenetic tree is based on what was found in the fossil record and is more reactive than predictive of the same. That a devonian-style critter is found in devonian rock is no big stretch. But in fact YEC would expect to find rock layering all caused by water. The original Darwin prediction was that the rock layers were gradually laid down over millions of years by the daily layering of dust and vegetation and so on. It is the non-creationists who have had to alter their suppositions and adopt the catastrophic explanation for fossil rock. Now they claim at least nine different catastrophes for the layers. Hardly as elegant as the one-world flood. The Flood has not ever been falsified and still remains the more likely cause of the rock records.

Since fossils are dated by the rocks, and the rocks by the fossils (a simplification but largely true) then there is really no certainty of the age of the fossils OR the rocks. The geological column as taught by school teachers is found in less than 1% of the world's rock formations. Many layers actually interbed or are flipped and otherwise out of order. Creationists also have difficulty understanding aspects of the layering, and the fossils. More about this later in Part II.

radar - "I find it interesting that so many macroevolutionists go to great lengths to portray creationists as whacked-out pseudo-scientists with no credentials. Is this a way to stop the discussion before it is begun?"


creeper - "After taking a quick glance at that thing about G A Wells you linked to above, I wonder if you were able to keep a straight face while typing that. Just about half of that little essay is devoted to an extended ad hominem regarding Wells' academic past. Is this a way to stop the discussion before it is begun?"

Wells is a self-taught 'scholar' with an apparent agenda. He is not comparable to this discussion. Besides, he belongs in the Christian discussion, not this one.

Let's talk about credentials. Perhaps you don't like this list. Perhaps you didn't read this post. There are more lists here. More here.
If you don't like AIG, read this one. There is also this page and this list.


It is a fact that there are hundreds of scientists who question macroevolution and hundreds who believe in special creation. Some of them are among the most brilliant scientists alive. Many of the great scientists of the past were creationists. Again I say that creationism is a valid scientific point of view whether or not it is the view of the majority.

Furthermore, in a previous post I linked to a creation science page that includes testable and falsifiable hypotheses. I linked it previously. Go read that and then tell me that creationism doesn't present empirically falsifiable hypotheses!

Whereas I addressed what a macroevolutionist is previously, I would love to have a shorter thing to type. Macro-evo? That sounds kind of cool. How about that? But one problem is that you view macroevolution as a fact and cannot see it as an untested and unproven hypothesis.


Dan S - 1) I respect your up-front concession, which has much of value. Honest consideration of opposing views is a rare and valuable commodity in the blogosphere. At the same time, there's something I have to take issue with: the use of "not a pure transitional form, since it remains a fish" and "the closest thing to a transitional form yet discovered." It's a definitional issue that has as its foundation something much bigger, not creationism, but - as some would suggest, anyway - the human habit of essentialism. (For starters, everything can be shoehorned into just a fish, or just an amphibian . . .)

Your poem in the post below led me to think (and eventually dig up) a poem I wrote, it turns out, almost exactly a decade ago, after walking from nighttime into daylight (something I did rather too much in college, and not truly since), with obligatory lovelorn sogginess, of course. We can point to night, easy, and we can point to day, easy. But the transition inbetween is different. We give these times names - dawn, dusk. For many animals, these are the times of most activity. For people, these - like many other in-between, liminal places and stages and times and things - are sometimes both special and uncanny. And they're frustrating. Can you pick the moment when night becomes day? Day becomes dusk becomes night? (Being ever ingenious, people have come up with various markers - so many stars visible, etc., but all have a sense of arbitrariness about them.) What you have instead is a stretch of time, watching individual slow, almost imperceptable moments that result in undeniable changes, as late afternoon deepens into the flush of sunset and is swallowed by starlight; as the world widens into light and night shrinks into shadows (including the genuinely strange moment where early morning has brought back form and depth and pale washes of color, yet not day, exactly.

There is no such thing as a 'pure' transitional form, only different moments. Indeed, given the nature of evolution, I don't think there can be such a thing; it would be an essentialist beast in a nonessentialist world. Instead, we would expect to see different mixes of characteristics making a sort of mosaic, tied, more or less well, to the task of literally making a living in, say, Devonian shallows or Carboniferous swamps or Permian uplands . .


Dan, what would really impress me is the transitional form today. But your comment was worth repeating on style alone. So I repeated it. Grins! Plus, you seem to indicate that nailing down a transitional form is a bit shaky anyway. maybe we would know one if we saw one.

The poem, though, should perhaps be posted in my coming poet's carnival. What do you think?