20.7.05

Dealing with the Creationists

Here is my response to Richard B's complaints that I am not dealing with the real arguments of Creationists.

Money quote:

"There are several ring species, but the most famous example is the herring gull. In Britain, these are white. They breed with the herring gulls of eastern America, which are also white. American herring gulls breed with those of Alaska, and Alaskan ones breed with those of Siberia. But as you go to Alaska and Siberia, you find that herring gulls are getting smaller, and picking up some black markings. And when you get all the way back to Britain, they have become Lesser Black-Backed Gulls.
So, the situation is that there is a big circle around the world. As you travel this circle, you find a series of gull populations, each of which interbreeds with the populations to each side. But in Britain, the two ends of the circle are two different species of bird. The two ends do not interbreed: they think that they are two different species."


So we have a real world example here of how you can have interbreeding populations separated only by distance that become more phylogenetically distinct as the distance increases - until the ends of the ring no longer recognize the other end as being a member of their own kind. Now consider how a minor calamity to a portion of the ring would change the single 'ring species' into two separate and non-interbreeding species - in short we would have an example of how 'speciation' occurs - the evolution of two distinct species from whence before there was only one.

In other words, the 'intermediary steps' of evolutionary speciation are visible to anyone who wishes to look for them, in the current populations of the Herring gull.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's much more convincing.

--Richard.

Anonymous said...

Now that I've wasted a good two hours reading from the talk-origins FAQ...

"Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor."

So... wail away all you want on the moron fringe... just acknowledge that that's what you're doing.

--Richard

Cameron said...

First let me say that I am not calling them the 'moron fringe'. I think they are wildly, incredibly, mistaken, but I don't characterize them as 'Morons'.

Second, they are not the fringe. In the US, they hold the balance of power in two of three of the major bodies of power, and with the current nomination potentially all three.

Plurarlism is much less under threat in Canada, but it still has enemies in the Reform element that holds sway in the Tories. As much as I think we are better equipped as a national psyche deal with the threat of theocratic impulses in Canada, we are by no means immune to its disease.

Anonymous said...

My label of "moron fringe" applies to those who reject observable micro-evolution. They do exist, and they are very dangerous, because their notions of reality have nothing to do with observable facts.

But, as the talk-origins FAQ identifies, as I quoted above, this fringe does not account for the majority of those who identify themselves as "creationists."

So, yes, elephants are now being born with shorter and non-existent tusks in Africa. That doesn't defeat the creationist argument, just the arguments of its moron fringe.

If we believe that the creationists are an active threat to the pluralism we value (Though, me, I think it's a stretch to say that 'they'--being creationists--control any branch of the federal government in the US) then it's important that we deal with and debate the substantive issues of their arguments: which the herring gull example does nicely.

But, if you throw the baby out with the bathwater, they'll take it personally: it's their baby.

They may be wrong, they may not be as thoroughly educated on the issue as they ought to be, and they may even disagree with you. But the pluralist society has to belong to them too if it is to survive.

I'm worried we'll lose to much nastier people than the moderates who you disagree with (namely the zealots), if we insist on taking away their right to say what they want because we disagree with them.

--Richard

Cameron said...

I see the 'zealots' and the 'creationists' as being largely one and the same group.

Is their a 'moderate' voice of creationism? What would that even look like? Aren't they by definition anti-science and anti-pluralistic and thus outside of anyting remotely like moderation?

I'm not for imposing some atheist worldview on anyone - I'll leave that for the Stalinists and Maoists out there to do. Nor am I interested in creating 'hate-speech' laws like those proposed in Britain. I'm a fan of 'live and let live', everyone should be able to worship as they please in the church of their choice, or not at all as they see fit. That to me is the real definition of 'Freedom'.

I do however seek to rebuke, rebut, and call to task those who threaten the core integrity of science and pluralism - be they 'leftists' seeking to impose 'political correctness', or 'rightists' seeking to impose their Christian/religious values.
I find them equally disturbing and repugnant.