RufusAtticus

No it did not. Haeckel's strict recapitulation hypothesis, which you are talking about here, has been discredited since the beginning of the twentieth century. It didn't last fourty years.
However, recapitulation , the observation that widely divergent creatures share similar development stages including ones that are later lost, is valid.

Yeah so what? Most of them still hold on to the theory of gravity too. Primarily, PuncEq is an applicatoin of population biology to the fossil record, not the fossil record to population biology.

No. The observation is that there are no creationist population biologists.

Point away. I bet it will be as accurate as your claims about recapitulation and punc eq.

long winded fool

Some evolutionary biologists used embryonic recapitulation as proof of evolution as recently as the 1940's. (Probably even more recently) Carl Sagan even used it to discredit creationism. Obviously evolutionists are mistaken in the sense that some hold to punctuated equilibrium and some hold to gradualism. They can't both be right. Either all evolutoinists who hold to punctuated equilibria are mistaken, or all evolutionists who hold to gradualism are, and probably have been for longer than a decade. The point being that, from an objective point of view, evolutionary mistakes can last just as long as creationist mistakes. They aren't "always corrected," therefore the argument that since creationist mistakes last decades, creationism isn't scientific is invalid. By this definition evolution is also unscientific, which is just as inaccurate.

Jobar

Hi lwf- just yesterday I was pointing a poster in EoG to your thread about God-as-programmer.

You say- Either all evolutoinists who hold to punctuated equilibria are mistaken, or all evolutionists who hold to gradualism are, and probably have been for longer than a decade.

Well, if you are talking about *dogmatic* punk eeks or gradualists, this is obviously so. However, there is nothing that prevents us from positing an evolutionary mechanism which has features of both pe and gradualism. As our knowledge increases, we will find out the truth about all this; no doubt some will find their pet theories smashed by the facts, but this is simply the way science works. The ones who find themselves arguing positions contrary to the evidence will sooner or later hang it up and admit they were wrong. That's one of the strengths of science, you know.

lpetrich

In theory, maybe, but in practice, creationists are very willing to believe whatever is convenient for their cause. Simply consider their taste for out-of-context quotes of evolutionary biologists.

long winded fool

Very true Jobar. This was simply meant as a response to Doubting Didymus' comment that implied that evolutionists' mistakes are somehow less relevant than creationists' mistakes. I have met creationist scientists and they are neither liars, nor ignorant. I believe they are mistaken about certain things, however I also believe evolutionists are mistaken about certain things. The point is: You can't say creationists are willing to believe whatever is convienient for their cause without also saying evolutionists are as well. These are both unfair generalizations. All I have to do is find one "evolutionist" who is completely off the mark, or even one evolutionary theory which is obviously bogus, and I've proven the falsity of evolution to the same extent as an evolutionist who says, "Creationists think that the earth is 30,000 years old and that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark!" disproves creationism. If you can point out a creationist mistake and use it to debunk creationism, why can't I point out a mistake in evolution and therefore debunk it? Saying creationism is wrong and our knowlege of evolution is merely incomplete is certainly a subjective statement, even if it turns out to be true. Creationists believe the same thing only vice-versa.

I realize that just about everyone who posts on this board believes in evolution. I just think we ought to extend the opposition the same courtesy we expect from them.

And I'm glad my post in EoG is still useful. I hope I did a good job showing the logical (or logically non-logical?) possibility of the "unmoved mover."

lpetrich

LWF, I challenge you to describe some of the more serious errors that creationists have made, and how those errors were shown to be errors.

And here is one creationist who claims that Noah had brought some dinosaurs aboard the Ark.

Also, many creationists believe that the Earth is younger than 30,000 years old -- something like 6000-10,000 years old.

So the notions of dinosaurs aboard the Ark and of a young Earth are not straw positions set up to make creationists look stupid, but instead, views that many creationists hold.

Also, LWF, you claim:
And what makes you so sure that both sides are equally guilty, O LWF?

RufusAtticus

Embryonic recapitulation is true and is evidence for evolution. Haekel's strict recapitulation is not true, and that has been realized for about a century. You are confusing two similar, but different ideas here.

They are both right. Puncuated equilibrium, which concerns the nature of the fossil record, does not contradict gradualism, which concerns the nature of evolutionary change.

The irony of your argument is that you haven't been right once when you've tried to identify an "evolutionist" mistake. I wonder how long you will hold on to the false idea that racapitulation and punc eq/gradualism are wrong.

Jobar

lwf, I put it to you that there is *no such thing* as a "creation scientist". Oh, there are certainly people who call themselves that, but in fact they do not use the methods of science. They are not scientists. Their sole agenda is to interpret all evidence so as to fit the little universe described in Genesis, no matter how poorly the evidence fits.

It is insulting to science and scientists to imply that the mistaken hypotheses which are an inevitable and expected result of the scientific method, are comparable to the blindness, silliness, and outright lies which creationists spout.

Think of it this way. Science is a means of traversing the maze of knowledge about the universe. It sometimes requires the exploration of dead ends; but when a scientist realizes he is in a dead end, he shrugs his shoulders and backtracks to a different path. Creationists, on the other hand, batter fruitlessly against the walls of their little cul-de-sac, insisting that it is too the path to true knowledge. They are incapable of giving up their 'hypothesis' because to them the hypothesis is holy writ, and not open to falsification.

long winded fool

I have heard all these arguments from creationists. Do you now say, "They're wrong and we're right,"? Fine, but the beliefs of one group of creationists do not necessarily reflect on creationism as a whole anymore than those scientists who believe that pe reflects evolutionary change as well as the fossil record reflect on the theory of evolution as a whole. (And if I can find even one person who believes this, then I can say that "Evolutionists believe," in the same vein that you say "Creationists believe" and point out a ridiculous theory that not all creationists believe.)

Honest evolutionists do make mistakes. Honest creationists also make mistakes. Whose mistakes may have been more frequent (evolutionists) and whose may be more ridiculous (creationists) should never enter the discussion of whether or not evolutionists should judge the validity of creationism on theories that not every creationist holds. Even an unresolved mistake does not reflect on the quality of a person's character. There are creationists who point out that evolutionists believe in strict recapitulation and are therefore moronic. You can shout that they're wrong or misquoting until you're blue in the face. A creationist scientist would be equally justified in shouting at an evolutionist who assumed he believed in a young earth and used it to ridicule creationism, if in fact he did not believe this. You are all taking exception to my bad examples but yet you are just as careless with your own, since yours are attacking creationism on an atheistic discussion board instead of evolution and are therefore generally safe from ridicule. (Unless the long winded fool finds them!) Don't judge creationism by its bad apples, even if some creationists do judge evolution by it's long amended mistakes.

I think it has been obvious that I'm not arguing for creationism, I'm arguing against ad hominem arguments coming from supposedly scientific supporters of evolution. I personally feel that evolution doesn't need these kinds of arguments to stand and I think that those who use them are lending even more warranted mistrust to their creationist opponents.

I'm surprised at the dogmatic qualities many of you assign evolutionary science. You all assume that there is only one way evolution can be interpreted, yet there ARE differences among evolutionists. Evolution is subject to splits and internal disagreements just as creationism is. "Since evolution on the whole is right, all evolutionists are objective scientists and their individual mistakes are understandable. Since creationism is by definition wrong, creationists are dishonest and obstinate and their collective mistakes are proof of just how stubborn and wrong they are." It is fundamentally true that not all creationists are ignorant and not all evolutionists are honest. I think evolutionary apologists should bear this in mind at all times, whether their opponents do or not. This tends to be a very sensitive topic on Christian boards, but I'd assumed atheistic evolutionists would be a little less defensive and prone to name-calling and at least a little more objective.

Albion

Scientists object to the way creationists try to equate evolution and creationism as being scientifically equivalent ways of exploring the way the universe works (or in this case exploring the diversity of life). Any method of enquiry that depends for its credibility on upholding the inerrancy and authority of scirpture is not science; the reason it's being presented as science is that it can't be taught in public schools if the scriptural imperative behind it is acknowledged.

There are very few, if any, creationist writings that aren't motivated by religion of one flavour or another. Creationists are not trying to put forward an alternative scientific theory, they're trying to change the nature of science so that it specifically includes God - and not even at the level of God working through the laws of nature, but at the level of requiring science to be changed enough that it can prove acts of special creation by a divine creator. That is not what science is about, and creationism is therefore an attack on the essence of the scientific method. Considering that this board is largely populated by people with scientific backgrounds, including some research scientists, how do you suppose they're going to react? No university profesor likes to be told to please stop mentioning the term "billions of years" in undergrad classes because it upsets the Christian students. THis is religion trying to censor science.

As far as lies are concerned - as already mentioned, just look at some of the pages of creationist quotes of researchers and writers in evolution and then look at them in context. Look at the way they claim that radiometric dating is worthless because experiments by scientists have shown wildly anomalous dates - conveneiently forgetting to mention that those scientists were creationists, not mainstream scientists publishing in geophysics journals. The list goes on and on. The creationist aim is not to improve science, it's to replace it. Please don't be surprised if scientists are less than thrilled.