Help with a letter.

The opposite truth has been affirmed by innumerable cases of measurable evolution at this minimal scale-but, to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the “paradox of the visibly irrelevant”-or, if you can see it at all, it’s too fast to matter in the long run. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

Do you agree that these two quotes are valid qualifications to be considered when reading the opening post to this thread?

Also, in a previous post you implied that the quote was in response to the following:

Evolution begins with mutation, an offspring genetically different to the parent...Repeat many times in many different situations and you have evolution.

Could you please explain to me how the quote of Roger Lewin is in any way relevant to the above quote. Neither the quote in itself, nor anything written by Lewin in the essay you took it from in any way negates Ryal Kane's statement above. What were you trying to show with the quote? Where did it contradict what Ryal Kane had written?

This is the full quote of Roger Lewin.

How do you interpret 'clear no'?

In light of the sentences following which add a lot of nuance to 'clear no'.

Help me with the 'nuance': Would you say the interpretation is not clearly No? or not clearly No?

Not clearly no as in we can't extrapolate the mechanisms of micro evolution to macro evolution.

'Clear no' actually becomes 'the mechanisms are valid but we have to add things'.

Add what things?

Clearly no as in it is a combination of the standard mechanisms of micro evolution with other mechanisms, such as isolation.

Before I respond, please tell me if there are any other mechanisms you have not mentioned.

I'll give you a summary of the Chicago conference according to Lewin, then you can reply to that.

The question requires a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer. If there are other mechanisms, please give me a list of terms. I do not want a summary. I do not want an explanation. I do not want a link. I am looking for a direct answer with specific terms.

So if you would have read the article you would have understood that my answer was "no, those are not all that is added" and then you would have understood that what was added/modified was all in the summary.

Romans 1.18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). ~ Richard Dawkins

It is his honest experience that people who have debated him know very little about evolutionary theory.

Why do you assume Dawkins is honest?

What reason do I have for not doing so? I know Dawkins to oppose creationism, I don't know him as a dishonest person and I won't judge him as such unless I have some very good reasons to do so.

Dawins holds allegiance to evoluionary mythology as the gold standard by which a person's intelligence and personal integrity should be measured. As a Christian, the Bible is my gold standard and Dawkins falls short. If you read the Dawkins essay and use allegiance to the Bible rather than evoluionary mythology as the standard of Truth, you will find that the points Dawkins made, apply to evoluionists.

Now, maybe he is wrong in this, I don't know. These are his observations, and to picture him as dishonest because he states them as such is, well, dishonest.

There are two reasons I believe Dawkins is dishonest. The first reason is that he denies the Truth of his Creator.

I also do not, does that make me dishonest too? In my opinion this is a completely baseless assumption, only based on prejudice. It is certainly not my experience that christians are more or less honest than non-christians.

In summary, you judge Dawkins on the basis of his belief, thus picturing him as a 'lesser' (or at least less honest) human being. You immediately draw the conclusion that he is dishonest on the basis of his refusal for public discussion, for which he might have other reasons. Furthermore, you tried to picture him as someone who paints his opponents as evil, while Dawkins has written a whole article in which he states that he does not think that. In short, you have no other reason for claiming Dawkins to be dishonest other than prejudice. For me, sir, you are being the one that is dishonest, not mister Dawkins.

The assumption that atheists are dishonest is based on the Word of God which is my starting point for Truth. We could begin a vicious circle of 'No, Youre a liar', but my point is that each side has a different foundation of Truth. Each side has developed arguments that are based on and consistent with their foundation. The essential argument is not about data. The essential argument is whether our Creator is relevant. If I stipulate that God is irrelevant, then something like evolution is the most likely scenario. If you stipulate that God is our Creator and that He is responsible for the Bible, then YEC is not only consistent, but also vastly superior to atheistic origins mythology.

Yes, you and I and Dawkins have different ways of looking at the world. This does not make any one of us less honest by default. Repeating that you base that on 'the Word of God' does not in anyway make your claim any less prejudiced. And even so, were in the 'word of God' are all non-christians automatically dishonest?

What Dawkins is saying is that people come to him with criticisms based on a misunderstanding of evolution theory. This is an observation of him. They criticize him, but only because they don't understand what he is saying. That is what his observation is. That is the whole point of Dawkins in his essay. The criticism he encountered was due to a misunderstanding of the theory or not being familiar with the facts.

So everyone who is 'familiar with the facts' and 'understands the theory' must agree with Dawkins?

At the point of evolution occurring, I'd say yes. On theoretical points about underlying mechanisms you might disagree with him, but on the question whether it occurs or not, yes, you'd have to agree with him. Maybe I can be persuaded to another viewpoint in the future, but till now this would be my position.

You have used the present tense. The actual conflict is over historic evolution. Would you say that everyone who is 'familiar with the facts' and 'understands the theory' must agree with Dawkins regarding historic evolution? Should this also be extended to include his atheism?

Okay, on the point of evolution occurring now and we coming from a universal ancestor. More to you liking.

And no, this should be extended to include his atheism. Why should it? Evolution =/= atheism. His worldview were it comes to metaphysics is his alone. He is out of his realm as a scientist there and into the realm of the unscientific, where scienitific arguments are no longer valid.

The second reason is his cowardly refusal to engage in open discussion. He has given personal anecdotes with no rebuttal from the original parties. This ruse has become his exscuse for dodging any subsequent discussion with creationists. If he is truly confident in the superiority of his reasoning, why does he refuse any public exchange with creationists?

There can be any number of reasons, none of which have to stem from dishonesty. He might not expect anything from it and have chosen to write about it in books and papers. They are public and can always be refuted if he writes things that are incorrect. Maybe he didn't like the atmosphere of debates he has been involved in. If his experience is that there are many misunderstandings among creationists, I can imagine that he chooses to write articles and books about the subject in stead of publicly debating, since this way he can explain his reasoning without time pressure or limitations on answers. He has chosen this way as the best way for him to explain his viewpoints and walks that road, and this does not have to stem from dishonesty.

He has isolated himself from honest debate. He is a paper tiger. He talks tough, but he never allows his views to be publicly challenged lest people get a glimpse that he is merely human and that he can not give satisfying answers to the questions he can safely ignore in his books.

You seem to be under the impression that debate is an honest way of communicating. You are wrong, it is just a way of finding out who is the better communicator. Dawkins sets forth his viewpoints in his books. They are just as public as an open debate. If you think he leaves out critical questions, you can read other books on those. If you don't find a good answer, maybe there is none and maybe you have a valid objection. If so, be my guest and publish.And I'm getting very curious about the self negating part of the sentence. You seem to be constantly busy to try and picture half truths. Why?

Bevets, why don't you stop the quote mining for once?

This is also known as 'reading'.

I commend you for going beyond the standard knee jerk response, and investing at least some effort in personally investigating my quotes. I think this is the second time this month someone gave my quotes some thought. I am truly grateful for your substantive criticism.

Actually it's not. It's known as plagiarism if you just repeat bits wholesale without references and citations or quote mining if you deliberately take it out of context. Reading is just the act of peering at written words and mentally (or out loud in certain circumstances) absorbing the information.

Every quote I use has a name attached to it -- that is a citation. Most people are aware that I have provided full documentation on my web page. Even if someone were not aware of this, they could simply google the quote and find the full citation. In most cases they would need to visit a library to personally verify the full context.

You have spectacularly missed my point. I shall try to be more clear. What you claim is reading is not reading. Quote mining is not reading, it is evidence that you have read, but the act of reproducing a quote out of context is not reading. That is my point.

As such people tend to dismiss you're comments as examples of the fallacy of appealing to others for authority.

You have offered 'stasis' and 'isolation' as additional macro evolutionary mechanisms. It appears that you believe that there are still more mechanisms left unmentioned. Please state precisely what these additional mechanisms are. (No summaries. No explanations. No links. Just specific terms for the mechanisms. e.g. 1) Stasis 2) Isolation 3) ? 4) ?...)

Regarding the tempo of evolution, the gradualist idea of evolution that it moves at a stately pace was overturned as people became convinced of the importance of periods of stasis with periods of rapid evolution (rapid as in 50.000 yrs).

Regarding the mode of change, the gradualist notion was that small changes such as point mutations lead to small changes in the phenotype of the animal. This idea was also overturned, in the sense that small changes in the genome might lead to big changes in phenotype and vice versa, and the changes in gene sequence by gene shifts and chromosomal alterations can be important mechanisms in evolutionary change. No consensus was reached, the only thing which was generally recognized by 'gradualists' as well as 'punctualists' was the importance of isolation.

Regarding the constraints on the physical form, the gradualist notion was that there are no constraints and all physical forms are in theory possible. Although no real consensus was reached, a good case was made for the idea that there are evolutionary constraints. For example, in the original gradualist notion mammals could, in the future, likely still develop feathers. The opposing idea which became more accepted is that this is not possible. Animals with scales such as reptiles can develop either feathers or hairs, but animals with feathers can not develop hairs and animals with hairs can not develop feathers.

Do you agree that this is fair summary of the article of Lewin. If not, how would you summarize it?

Do you agree that Lewin said that the mechanisms of 'micro evolution' are still considered when looking at 'macro evolution', however that more abrupt changes should also be considered (such as chromosomal alterations). That is what Lewin meant with 'What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.'

Also, do you agree with Lewin's description of 'macro evolution' as "Changes above the species level - involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns." Do you agree that Lewin is talking about speciation (origin of new species) here, which has been observed in nature and in controlled experiments in the laboratory, as is admitted by creationists. If not, what is Lewin talking about?

I listed a passage in my previous post. I have relisted the post and bolded for your ease of reference.

I never claimed that evolution is the same thing as atheism. Evolution is based on atheistic assumptions.

Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination. ~ Daniel Dennett

Darwinists believe that the mutation-selection mechanism accomplishes wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated, but because they cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator, i.e., a being or force outside the world of nature. ~ Phillip Johnson

I suspect there is a lot of intellectual dishonesty on this issue. Consider the following fantasy: the National Academy of Sciences publishes a position paper on science and religion stating that modern science leads directly to atheism. What would happen to its funding? To any federal funding of science? Every member of the Congress of the United States of America, even the two current members who are unaffiliated with any organized religion, profess to be deeply religious. I suspect that scientific leaders tread very warily on the issue of the religious implications of science for fear of jeopardizing the funding for scientific research. And I think that many scientist feel some sympathy with the need for moral education and recognize the role that religion plays in this endeavor. These rationalizations are politic but intellectually dishonest. ~ William Provine

Dawkins routinely denigrates creationists in public, yet he refuses to defend his charges either in a debate or even an interview. His title is 'Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University'. Education allows for free exchange and critique of opposing ideas. Dawkins has NO interest in publicly responding to criticism or publicly defending his own remarks. This is not education. This is propaganda.