Is There a 'Middle Ground' Author?

rush1169

Newbie
Jun 13, 2012
327
6
✟9,601.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In my search for the 'truth' between creation and evolution, I've come to realize that there are very few (any?) resources that the writer/speaker is not already comitted one way or another. As such, whatever it is that is being researched seems to have a foregone conclusion depending on the author's comittment. If you know the author's committment in advance, you already know what you are about to read and if you don't know in advance, you'll know by the time you finish reading.

It's rare (ever?) for a writer to, regardless of their comittment, say, "Yeah, this simply does not fit (creation/evolution) because. . .(the reason will greatly weaken or destroy my case)" without at least qualifing the reason to eliminate the weakening or destruction.

My inquisition becomes maddening and frustrating. I think it's even more frustrating than talking about political 'hot topics' with the opposition :)

It would be so refreshing to talk/read about <insert any creation/evolution facet here> with people who can honestly see, consider, and discuss both 'sides' of the issue. With that, does anyone know of a book or other resource in which the author firmly stands in the middle and discusses both sides of the issue? Is there anyone here that can discuss both sides?
 

Delphiki

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2010
4,342
161
Ohio
✟5,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
In my search for the 'truth' between creation and evolution, I've come to realize that there are very few (any?) resources that the writer/speaker is not already comitted one way or another. As such, whatever it is that is being researched seems to have a foregone conclusion depending on the author's comittment. If you know the author's committment in advance, you already know what you are about to read and if you don't know in advance, you'll know by the time you finish reading.


There really isn't a middle ground -- there's what the evidence points to and then there's religious mythology. What you might be looking for, though is an author who is a theistic evolutionist. That is, someone who accepts the reality of biological evolution, but also believes in a deity (usually one that "set everything in motion", so to speak).

Recommended Readings on Theistic Evolution and Creation
 
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,213
5,605
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,135.00
Faith
Atheist
I'm not sure what sort of middle ground there is to find. It seems to me that you either believe/accept one of the following:
  • Evolution accounts for the diversity of life we see
  • God more-or-less individually crafted each species
  • God set nature in motion. Evolution is God's intended means for creating the diversity of life we see.

You can choose
  • God is behind it
  • There is no god behind it (either by choice of the divine or by simply failing to exist)

If one has not taken a position, it is most likely because that person has no interest in the question.

How does one choose between the above positions? Either one accepts that our senses and attendant logic are reliable indicators of reality, or one doesn't? (There are those that accept the input of their senses except where the interpretation of that input differs from their interpretation of their preferred holy book.)

What sort of middle ground were you hoping to find?
 
Upvote 0

rush1169

Newbie
Jun 13, 2012
327
6
✟9,601.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What sort of middle ground were you hoping to find?
Not a middle ground between evoltuion/creation. Maybe 'middle ground' is the wrong term as the previous poster seemed to think in terms of theistic evolution. Maybe an example would be better. . .

Let's say we're talking about 'transitional fossils' (ie the 'missing links'). The evolutionist seems to always say, "there are plenty, look at x, y, and z!" or "fossilization is too rare, that's why you find few/none" or "they haven't found any/few, but folks are still digging - there is a lot of digging to do" while the creationist always says, "there are none!"

Then when the two open talks about missing links x, y, and z, it's always completely obvious to the evolutionist the transitional features while the creationist see no transitional evidence.

Where is the 3rd party that can take an objective look at x, y, and z and talk about why they may be an example of a transitional and why they may not be an example of a transitional. It's that 3rd party who will take their best shot at an objective look between all the arguments and compile factual details for both cases.

Hope that makes more sense :)
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
In my search for the 'truth' between creation and evolution, I've come to realize that there are very few (any?) resources that the writer/speaker is not already comitted one way or another.
You could say the same about heliocentrism and Round Earthism for much the same reason.

As such, whatever it is that is being researched seems to have a foregone conclusion depending on the author's comittment. If you know the author's committment in advance, you already know what you are about to read and if you don't know in advance, you'll know by the time you finish reading.

It's rare (ever?) for a writer to, regardless of their comittment, say, "Yeah, this simply does not fit (creation/evolution) because. . .(the reason will greatly weaken or destroy my case)" without at least qualifing the reason to eliminate the weakening or destruction.
Actually, this is the staple of scientific publications (reputable journals, at least). Even Darwin listed potential objections in his book.

My inquisition becomes maddening and frustrating. I think it's even more frustrating than talking about political 'hot topics' with the opposition :)

It would be so refreshing to talk/read about <insert any creation/evolution facet here> with people who can honestly see, consider, and discuss both 'sides' of the issue. With that, does anyone know of a book or other resource in which the author firmly stands in the middle and discusses both sides of the issue? Is there anyone here that can discuss both sides?
I don't think such an author exists. But, I don't see the issue with reading a book on evolution by an evolutionist, or a book on creationism by a creationist. At the end of the day, you should evaluate the evidence presented for both claims. Read Dawkin's book on the evidence for evolution - he's staunchly pro-evolution, sure, but the book is written to present the evidence. There's nothing wrong with a Creationist citing evidence for creationism, or an evolutionist citing evidence for evolution, so long as you can critique it with your own mind.

To paraphrase Gautama Buddha, trust nothing, demand sources for everything.

That is why I'm a firm believer in evolution, FYI :p The evidence for is overwhelming, and the evidence against is virtually non-existence. Contrast that with Creationism, where the opposite is true.
 
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,213
5,605
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,135.00
Faith
Atheist
I suppose that makes more sense.

But this "discussion ground" belongs to the scientists. These are the folks that dicuss why a particular fossil may or may not be a good example of a transitional. The creationist only gets around to denying the validity of a transitional after the scientists have already discussed the pros and cons and then decided it is a good example of a transitional.

IME, the creationist denies what has already been through the "discussion/middle ground." They are denying what is no longer really up for discussion.

Of course, the scientists could be wrong. Some new information may come to light that will cause some particular finding to be re-evaluated. But my point here is that the sort of discussion you are looking for takes place among scientists.

By the time such discussion gets to a forum like this, except maybe when we are discussing a news report about something like FTL neutrinos, it's already over.

YMMV
 
Upvote 0

rush1169

Newbie
Jun 13, 2012
327
6
✟9,601.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The creationist only gets around to denying the validity of a transitional after the scientists have already discussed the pros and cons and then decided it is a good example of a transitional.

Your implying that there are no scientists who are also creationists. Although I have no 'scientific source', I'm going to go out on a limb and say that is not true.

I would concede that a majority of the group of scientists evaluating the transitional nature of the fossil are evolutionists, but that means their decision to delcare it transitional is biased by their worldview. Also too, the minority of creationist scientists would argue against the transitional nature by definition of their worldview. Therefore, if the creationist scientist is always in the minority, then the 'official classification' is always decided on by evolutionists.

Therein lies my problem. Where is that neutral 3rd party who can look at the decision and write about the circumstances as to why it may be or may not be a transitional fossil using only the facts involved and no faith-based assumptions?
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Your implying that there are no scientists who are also creationists. Although I have no 'scientific source', I'm going to go out on a limb and say that is not true.

I would concede that a majority of the group of scientists evaluating the transitional nature of the fossil are evolutionists, but that means their decision to delcare it transitional is biased by their worldview.
I disagree. There are many checks in science to preclude or eliminate personal bias. And besides, the accolades in science goes to those who disprove theories - the scientists who overhauls evolution, or disproves it entirely, will go down as a revolutionary on par with Darwin and Einstein.

Also too, the minority of creationist scientists would argue against the transitional nature by definition of their worldview. Therefore, if the creationist scientist is always in the minority, then the 'official classification' is always decided on by evolutionists.

Therein lies my problem. Where is that neutral 3rd party who can look at the decision and write about the circumstances as to why it may be or may not be a transitional fossil using only the facts involved and no faith-based assumptions?
Your assumption is that scientists don't do that in the first place. They do. It's not as simple as, "This bone, is it transitional? Well, I'm an evolutionist, so yes!". Besides the fact that there are all sorts of objective data that corroborates the decision, if there isn't such objective data, then other evolutionary scientists are more than happy to discredit those findings.

Consider this: 150 years ago, evolution wasn't around. Now, virtually all scientists believe in it. The same with quantum mechanics, general relativity, the Big Bang theory, etc. Why? Because scientists take great pains to eliminate personal bias. It can be an issue, but there are ways around it.
 
Upvote 0

CaliforniaSun

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
2,104
41
✟2,613.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Your implying that there are no scientists who are also creationists. Although I have no 'scientific source', I'm going to go out on a limb and say that is not true.

I would concede that a majority of the group of scientists evaluating the transitional nature of the fossil are evolutionists, but that means their decision to delcare it transitional is biased by their worldview. Also too, the minority of creationist scientists would argue against the transitional nature by definition of their worldview. Therefore, if the creationist scientist is always in the minority, then the 'official classification' is always decided on by evolutionists.

Therein lies my problem. Where is that neutral 3rd party who can look at the decision and write about the circumstances as to why it may be or may not be a transitional fossil using only the facts involved and no faith-based assumptions?
ToE is robust and enjoys over 150 years of data, and is the best explanation for life on earth as we know it. It, by definition is the middle ground.

Just because a certain group of individuals with degrees in theology say otherwise, does not make it so. Real evidence is required, and without the bible, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

The crux of the matter is this: ToE began with a question. Creationism began with the answer. I hope you can see the difference.

Keep in mind, the majority of scientists and biologists working every day in universities and labs throughout the world, are blithely unaware that creationism actually exists.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Your implying that there are no scientists who are also creationists. Although I have no 'scientific source', I'm going to go out on a limb and say that is not true.

I would concede that a majority of the group of scientists evaluating the transitional nature of the fossil are evolutionists, but that means their decision to delcare it transitional is biased by their worldview. Also too, the minority of creationist scientists would argue against the transitional nature by definition of their worldview. Therefore, if the creationist scientist is always in the minority, then the 'official classification' is always decided on by evolutionists.

Therein lies my problem. Where is that neutral 3rd party who can look at the decision and write about the circumstances as to why it may be or may not be a transitional fossil using only the facts involved and no faith-based assumptions?

FYI, There is not one single published peer review paper published any any physical science journal that contradicts the theory of evolution. And BTW, why do you use the word evolutionists? What specifically is an evolutionist. If people like to look at the stars would you call all of them astronomers? I think not. Would you call all people who visit the Grand Canyon geologists? I think not. Are all people who fly in an airplane pilots? Get the idea? Just because someone understands the theory of evolution and accepts it, that does not make them an evolutionist.

I accept the theory of evolution based on my education in related fields and experience. I do not consider myself an "evolutionist".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Your implying that there are no scientists who are also creationists. Although I have no 'scientific source', I'm going to go out on a limb and say that is not true.

I would concede that a majority of the group of scientists evaluating the transitional nature of the fossil are evolutionists, but that means their decision to delcare it transitional is biased by their worldview. Also too, the minority of creationist scientists would argue against the transitional nature by definition of their worldview. Therefore, if the creationist scientist is always in the minority, then the 'official classification' is always decided on by evolutionists.

Therein lies my problem. Where is that neutral 3rd party who can look at the decision and write about the circumstances as to why it may be or may not be a transitional fossil using only the facts involved and no faith-based assumptions?

You are assuming that the scientific concensus is biased by "world views." While there is bias among scientists (they are human) the idea of an "evolutionist" world view is one made up by creationists, who assume that evolution must be a "world view" which opposes their own. This idea is based on the fact that their denial of evolution is indeed based on a world view and therefore they assume anyone who accepts evolution must also be doing so because they follow an "evolution" world view. This is usually incorrect.

In addition, bias among scientists is corrected by scientific methodology and the peer review process. No matter how baised a scientist is, if his ideas are incorrect, they will eventually be rejected, even if they have a great deal of inertia behind them. Spontaneous generation and phlogeston being prime examples. There were in fact many prominent scientists of Darwin's time who rejected evolution until their dying day, such as Georges Cuvier. Eventually, however, the explanatory power of evolution won over the scientifc community... not any "world view."
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Not a middle ground between evoltuion/creation. Maybe 'middle ground' is the wrong term as the previous poster seemed to think in terms of theistic evolution. Maybe an example would be better. . .

Let's say we're talking about 'transitional fossils' (ie the 'missing links'). The evolutionist seems to always say, "there are plenty, look at x, y, and z!" or "fossilization is too rare, that's why you find few/none" or "they haven't found any/few, but folks are still digging - there is a lot of digging to do" while the creationist always says, "there are none!"

Then when the two open talks about missing links x, y, and z, it's always completely obvious to the evolutionist the transitional features while the creationist see no transitional evidence.

Where is the 3rd party that can take an objective look at x, y, and z and talk about why they may be an example of a transitional and why they may not be an example of a transitional. It's that 3rd party who will take their best shot at an objective look between all the arguments and compile factual details for both cases.

Hope that makes more sense :)

This is actually a good example to use. The problem is not a lack of a middle ground. The problem is two completely different approaches to the evidence.

In the scientific approach, Darwin proposed a theory of descent with modification. This necessarily means that there were species in the past that had a mixture of characteristics from earlier and later species, otherwise known as transitional fossils. What did scientists do? Create a definition for transitional fossil, and then look to see if newly discovered fossils meet this criteria. What happened? Fossil after fossil met this definition.

In the creationist approach we have just the opposite. You start with the dogmatic position that transitional fossils can not exist. Ever. Creationists do not make a definition for transitional fossil and then look to see if fossils meet that definition. They can't do that. Instead, they just state that no fossil can ever be considered transitional because creationism has to be true and evolution has to be false. Just ask a creationist to list the criteria they use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not. You will get a blank stare. They have no such list. They use no objective criteria to determine if a fossil is transitional or not. It isn't a matter of not seeing transitional fossils. They are not allowed to see them.

There is no middle ground between these two approaches. Either you are willing to follow the evidence or you are not. Creationists are not willing. They can't even create a list of criteria for what a transitional fossil should look like because they know that any reasonable description will describe the fossils we already have, and that can not happen. Those who have followed the evidence come to the conclusion that evolution is responsible for the biodiversity we see today.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Rush: just take a quick peek at the debate over the nature of Ediacaran organisms. To say that their status as transitional forms is debated would be a huge understatement. These things have been declared everything from obvious examples of living animal groups to not even animals. (Most are considered animals now, but how many of them are actual precursors to more familiar animals is still hotly debated.) Obviously, most scientists researching them would come down on one side or other of these debates, but on the whole, they definitely aren't just accepted as transitional forms because some of them kinda look like later animals and hey, the Cambrian explosion must have come from somewhere!

(If you aren't averse to reading scientific literature, this review is a nice discussion of Ediacarans, and you can get the full text for free from that link.)

As a bonus, here is a paper (by evolutionary scientists, in case there was any doubt) specifically disputing the transitional nature of a fossil that was previously argued to represent an arthropod ancestor. (There would be many similar examples if we started digging around the literature; this one was just easy for me to remember as it happens to cast doubt on a hypothesis I personally liked :))

Is this the sort of middle ground you had in mind? As Wiccan said, actual scientific debates are the most likely place to find it.

(Gosh, the (Pre)Cambrian seems to be on my mind a lot these days.)
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Your implying that there are no scientists who are also creationists.

Science is first and foremost an activity. It is something you DO. Scientists are people who DO scientific research. I am not aware of a single scientist who is actively doing original research based on creationism. I think that says a lot about the scientific content of creationism.

I would concede that a majority of the group of scientists evaluating the transitional nature of the fossil are evolutionists, but that means their decision to delcare it transitional is biased by their worldview.

Creationists are free to come up with a working definition of transitional and then apply this definition to fossils to see if they are indeed transitional. What is stopping them? Why aren't they doing this type of research?

Also too, the minority of creationist scientists would argue against the transitional nature by definition of their worldview. Therefore, if the creationist scientist is always in the minority, then the 'official classification' is always decided on by evolutionists.

What criteria are these scientists using to determine if a fossil is transitional or not?

Therein lies my problem. Where is that neutral 3rd party who can look at the decision and write about the circumstances as to why it may be or may not be a transitional fossil using only the facts involved and no faith-based assumptions?

The scientific method is that 3rd party. It is the referee that runs the game, to use an analogy. Every hypothesis has a null hypothesis, the conditions under which the hypothesis is falsified. If the results of an experiment match the null hypothesis then the hypothesis is rejected. If a fossil does not meet the criteria for a transitional fossil then it is rejected as a transitional fossil.

The difference between science and creationism is that creationists refuse to follow the scientific method. They refuse to have a 3rd party looking over their shoulder.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rush1169

Newbie
Jun 13, 2012
327
6
✟9,601.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Maybe my ability to write in such a way that it's easily understood is not so good. I'll try again.

So, let's say scientist 'Jane' is researching the best reproductive temperture for E. Coli bacteria. She concludes 40 degrees and publishes a paper of her findings. Other scientists review the finding and methodolgy used and critique the paper or even reproduce the experiment and publish their findings. Typical science at work and no evolution/creation is involved. The scientific method at work.

Contrast that with scientist 'Jeff' who has discovered an unknown animal fossil. He does what he does to figure out what it is and publishes a paper on what it is. Maybe it's something he decided is a new creature and his paper reflects the tests and measurements done and why he has declared it as being a new discovery. Other scientists do their review which may involve their own experiments and tests. Ultimately, the majority agrees that it is a new animal. The scientific method at work and still no sign of the worldviews of the parties involved.

Now, let's say that fossill looks kinda like a frog and kinda like a turtle. Maybe after the bones are assembled and reconstuctionists make renderings the fossil actually does resemble something between a frog and a turtle. Someone says, "Maybe this is a transitional fossil!" And so work begins among scientists to make that determination. Is the scientific method used to answer the question, "Is this a transitional fossil?" The answer is obviously 'no'.

There is no scientific method application that can be used to determine if this creature was the divergent point of the frog and the turtle. Sure, the scientist making that initial call can write an argument why it is a divergent and other scientists can review his argument and either agree or disagree. Let's say the consensus agree and this creature is officially declared the divergent point of the frog and the turtle. The determination of the creature being the divergent and subsequent affirmation process only resembles the scientific method in style, but requires evocation of the 'upstream' assumption that life formed from non-life and a single, simplest form of life begat all life (ie evolutionary worldview).

The E. Coli and animal classification experiments can adhere to the scientific method because no worldview is needed. In fact a vast majority of experiments that are applicable to the scientific method have no need to consider a worldview. Heck, as I'm writing this it seems that by definition any experiement that adhers to the scientific method must ignore any worldview for it to maintain coherency.

Staying with this "Is it a transitional?" question, a person holding an evolutionary worldview will answer 'yes', 'no', or 'maybe' and a person holding a creationist worldview will answer 'no'. When both worldviews agree, then obviously that item is 'one for the books' and is never brought up again. However, it is in the cases when one says 'yes' and the other says 'no' that I'm looking for the writings of the well-educated scientist in that field who can write about the pros and cons of both worldviews, in a factual, un-biased manner so that I can use his or her facts to make my own conclusion.
---------
Side note: I'm not just talking about transitional fossils. I'm talking about all the 'talking points' from both sides.
---------
Anyway, I hope that adds more clarification without being too wordy. I tried originally to keep it simple, but based on the responses that seem to miss or talk around my question, I hope this writing is more clear. Maybe finding a middle-ground person is futile. I dunno.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Now, let's say that fossill looks kinda like a frog and kinda like a turtle. Maybe after the bones are assembled and reconstuctionists make renderings the fossil actually does resemble something between a frog and a turtle. Someone says, "Maybe this is a transitional fossil!" And so work begins among scientists to make that determination. Is the scientific method used to answer the question, "Is this a transitional fossil?" The answer is obviously 'no'.

There is no scientific method application that can be used to determine if this creature was the divergent point of the frog and the turtle.

This is a classic mistake, one that many people make. If a fossil has a mixture of features from two divergent taxa then it is transitional, by definition. Period. However, transitional does NOT mean evolution is true. Rather, it is the PATTERN of transitional features amongst different fossils and species that evidences evolution.

Let's say we found a fossil that has a mixture of derived mammal and avian features. This would be a transitional between mammals and birds. This transitional would FALSIFY evolution. Let me say that again. That transitional fossil, if found, would falsify evolution.

So why is that? Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. It is the most important prediction that the theory of evolution makes. This prediction tells us that we should see reptile-mammal transitionals, but we should not avian-mammal transitionals. That is the falsifiable test, and that is what makes the theory of evolution scientific.

As it turns out, every fossil species and living species falls into this pattern, the pattern of a nested hierarchy. That is why evolution is accepted so widely amongst biologists. That is why when a transitional is found it is understood to be illustrative of past evolutionary events, because evolution has passed test after test after test.

The determination of the creature being the divergent and subsequent affirmation process only resembles the scientific method in style, but requires evocation of the 'upstream' assumption that life formed from non-life and a single, simplest form of life begat all life (ie evolutionary worldview).

It is not an assumption that life shares a common ancestor and changed over time through the mechanisms of evolution. It is a conclusion drawn from mountains of evidence.

Staying with this "Is it a transitional?" question, a person holding an evolutionary worldview will answer 'yes', 'no', or 'maybe' and a person holding a creationist worldview will answer 'no'. When both worldviews agree, then obviously that item is 'one for the books' and is never brought up again. However, it is in the cases when one says 'yes' and the other says 'no' that I'm looking for the writings of the well-educated scientist in that field who can write about the pros and cons of both worldviews, in a factual, un-biased manner so that I can use his or her facts to make my own conclusion.

As I stated before, creationists define transitional fossil as "something that can't exist". That is the totality of their definition. Creationists do not dig for fossils. Creationists do not examine and publish papers on new fossils that they find. Creationists do not even have a working and scientific definition for transitional. All they have is denial of the facts. In a case like this, there can be no middle ground. Either you address the facts or you don't.

BTW, I am really enjoying your posts. I can be a bit blunt, so please don't take my criticisms the wrong way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Now, let's say that fossill looks kinda like a frog and kinda like a turtle. Maybe after the bones are assembled and reconstuctionists make renderings the fossil actually does resemble something between a frog and a turtle. Someone says, "Maybe this is a transitional fossil!" And so work begins among scientists to make that determination. Is the scientific method used to answer the question, "Is this a transitional fossil?" The answer is obviously 'no'.
The answer is obviously yes. I think this is the crux of your problem. The determination is not based on any imaginative reconstruction.. it is based on the fossil bones itself. If a fossil species has characteristics found only in two related lineages, then the fossil is transitional. Now, where you will have less objective determinations involve asking whether or not the fossil is directly ancestral to any particular species. There is no good methodology for this.

There is no scientific method application that can be used to determine if this creature was the divergent point of the frog and the turtle. Sure, the scientist making that initial call can write an argument why it is a divergent and other scientists can review his argument and either agree or disagree. Let's say the consensus agree and this creature is officially declared the divergent point of the frog and the turtle. The determination of the creature being the divergent and subsequent affirmation process only resembles the scientific method in style, but requires evocation of the 'upstream' assumption that life formed from non-life and a single, simplest form of life begat all life (ie evolutionary worldview).
There is no such "evocation" required. If life was created by a god or alien, and then allowed to evolve, there would be no effect on the resulting lineage, if viewed in isolation (which is what you are doing here). Again, I must emphasize that there is no "evolutionary worldview."

The E. Coli and animal classification experiments can adhere to the scientific method because no worldview is needed. In fact a vast majority of experiments that are applicable to the scientific method have no need to consider a worldview. Heck, as I'm writing this it seems that by definition any experiement that adhers to the scientific method must ignore any worldview for it to maintain coherency.
Correct. Although, you are wrong to think that determining taxonomic levels is easy. It is often quite arbitrary.

Staying with this "Is it a transitional?" question, a person holding an evolutionary worldview will answer 'yes', 'no', or 'maybe' and a person holding a creationist worldview will answer 'no'. When both worldviews agree, then obviously that item is 'one for the books' and is never brought up again. However, it is in the cases when one says 'yes' and the other says 'no' that I'm looking for the writings of the well-educated scientist in that field who can write about the pros and cons of both worldviews, in a factual, un-biased manner so that I can use his or her facts to make my own conclusion.
Creationists will simply say "no" to any transitional. What type of intermediate method are you looking for? If person "A" says NO to everything regardless of the evidence, and person "B" tries to use established methodology to determing yes, no, or maybe, there isn't really any other middle source, since person "B" is already the middle source.
 
Upvote 0

rush1169

Newbie
Jun 13, 2012
327
6
✟9,601.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I've exhausted myself with internet arguing between creationism and evolutionism (not in this thread or forum). I've never come across anyone who doesn't resort to hyperbole and rhetoric from BOTH sides of the argument. It always results ridiculous discussions in semantics, wordiness, and assumptions presented as fact. So much so that inordinate amounts of time and typing is required to keep both parties focused and to filter out the false statements that are presented as fact. It's a tiresome process that never results in any coherent agreement or conclusion or presentation. Just look at the crazy long topics in this forum that are a continuous recycling of talking points.

@Loudmouth: While I appreciate your worldview explanation of how the scientific method applies to transitional fossils, you've really just provided an example as to why I'm looking for a science professional who can take a non-worldview based, soley factual approach to examining the presentations of both worldviews applicable to, in this case, a specific transitional fossil. More generally, one who takes a non-worldview stance on many of the talking points found in any evolutionist/creationist 'debate'.

Maybe there are no well researched analysis made from a standpoint that objectively examines both worldviews. . .
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rush1169

Newbie
Jun 13, 2012
327
6
✟9,601.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Creationists will simply say "no" to any transitional. What type of intermediate method are you looking for? If person "A" says NO to everything regardless of the evidence, and person "B" tries to use established methodology to determing yes, no, or maybe, there isn't really any other middle source, since person "B" is already the middle source.

To clarify my less than detailed enough problem description: Person "B" can answer 'yes', 'no', or 'maybe' because he/she holds an evolutionary worldview, therefore is NOT the middle ground. Just as person 'A', the creationist, is not a middle ground. The only reason "B" can answer 'maybe' is not meant to imply that 'maybe' is a middle ground on the question, rather the creature in question doesn't reveal enough for evolutionist "B" to make a firm declaration either way. Both person "A" and "B" hold opposing worldviews. I'd like to see a person "C" who doesn't adhere to either worldview filter the argument of person "B" to just the facts of the fossil and then talk about in what ways just the facts of the fossil may support it's transitional status or how the facts may not support it's transitional status. Hopefully that helps you understand what (and why) I'm looking for person "C" - and that person "C" need not be specific to transitionals, but any point of argument between the two sides. . .
 
Upvote 0