My post on the cognitive dissonance in Florida about evolution brought a lot of comments, including one from David. Although he seems to be attacking other commenters rather than post itself as far as I can tell, he makes three points that are worth addressing.
1. "...most of you have no clue as to what ID/Creationists really believe."
"ID/Creationists" is an interesting phrase, given how Intelligent Design advocates keep telling us over and over again that ID is not creationism. Are these ID folks lying?
2. According to David, "ID/creationists" see a difference "between mirco-evolution [sic] (natural selection) and macro-evolution (goo to you by way of the zoo). Therefore you are arguing against a point of view from a position of ignorance."
This supposed distinction between microevolution and macroevolution made by creationists is an old one. It's certainly no secret to me. But acknowledging that "ID/creationists" see this difference doesn't change the thrust of my argument, nor those of the commenters who agreed with it.
Some of the cutting-edge research carried out at Scripps is based on "microevolution"--if you define that as evolutionary change that occurs within a species. Some research on evolution of antibiotic resistance would fit that definition. On the other hand, much of it is based on "macroevolution"--if you define it as evolutionary changes above the scale of microevolution. For example, the research of Claes Wahlestedt which I described identifies crucial bits of DNA by finding similar sequences in humans and mice. This research relies on the well-established fact that humans and mice share a common ancestor, which, over millions of years, gave rise to thousands of species--including us and mice. You by way of the zoo, in other words.
If ID/creationists reject macroevolution, then it logically follows that they reject work done at Scripps, not to mention the medical discoveries they may make. Simple as that.
3. Finally, David asks, "If evolution is the answer that unequivocally explains it all, from abiogenesis to modern man, then why do over 60% of our people believe that we were created? They have all studied the same evolutionist textbooks for the last 50-60 years. Here comes some elitist remark about the ignorant masses not having the intellegence to understand the true science behind it, so they have to fall back to religion!"
The majority of Americans think that electrons are larger than atoms and that lasers work by focusing sound. Does this change the fact that both statements are untrue?
