Posted by Tom on September 20, 1999 at 09:11:37:
In Reply to: mixed signals posted by rpcman on September 17, 1999 at 18:49:09:
I presume that if species descended from ancestral forms, such as humans
from apes, they did so by intelligent design, not as the outcome of random
genetic mutation plus natural selection. If this is confusing, that would largely be due
to the fact that mainstream evolutionists have wanted to pretend that this is
the same as embracing the Darwinian faith. It's part of their political campaign to
mollify religious opposition. (Gould keeps declaring over and over again that
the mainstream churches side with the Darwinists--but they don't really) My position would
not be acceptable to orthodox Darwinists.
: : Both sides of the debate have the ulterior motive of rejection of the premises of the other side, despite the apparent attempts to discuss individual aspects of the larger question on their own merits.
: I'm unable to figure out what Tom believes--let alone determine whether I reject his premises.
: First he doubts macroevolution. Then he indicates some sort of belief in Gould (who doesn't reject macroevolution by any means). Then he hints that he believes in common ancestory. Then he says that we are talking about different definitions of 'macroevolution'. If I can't understand where he is even coming from then there isn't much to discuss.
: Last time I checked macroevolution = evolution of different species from a common ancestor.