They even doesn’t know that some bustards put nets in dams! I hate them!!! Fishing department does not do anything to solve that problem! They think that every fisherman has fishing license! But it is not truth.. I believe that only 20% has fishing license!!!

Hope that problems will be solved soon!

In other words, under phylogenetic discontinuity, all owls had a common ancestor and differentiated through natural selection, etc., as they occupied new niches, and underwent other ecological and biogeographical processes. Under the “centers of creation” concept, different owls at different times in different lands were created. That isn’t what modern creationists believe (even in the past, that was primarily an argument put forward by individuals who held to deep time and a non-literal Genesis, but still found themselves arguing against Darwin on principle).

Well, this is an alternative to Lyell’s “centers of creation,” that’s true. It is also very strange… why argue that owls as a taxon are unrelated from other birds when the dinosaur/theropod origin of birds is apparent? It’s ridiculous. The question isn’t whether owls are related to other birds at all – it’s whether they’re more closely related to nightjars or to the diurnal raptors.

I also have a quibble about what creationists believe… despite Chad’s assertions, biblical literalists such as Norma above do in fact represent mainstream creationism. About 45% of Americans believe that the Earth was created 6-10,000 years ago with species in their current form, and the more “liberal” brands of Christianity, along with Old Earth Creationism, are the ones losing followers. The evangelical/conservative sects of Christianity which espouse the fixity of species and reject much of modern science are growing meanwhile. So whatever Chad thinks most creationists believe, it would seem that he’s wrong.

Clearly, “creation of a biological organism de novo is not only possible but has happened often throughout natural history” is not a creationist claim. The “de novo” event happened once, not “thoughout natural history.” I’m not sure where you came up with that one.

I got it from your previous comment where you(!!!) argued just yesterday that…

Instead of a single global “bush of life” (as evolutionists suggest), there are multiple global “bushes of life” where differentiation (including speciation) has occurred over a period of time throughout the planet. This is a very different concept from “centers of creation,” where certain types were suggested to have been created in different parts of the world at different times.

So which is it?

Do you accept universal common ancestry or not? If you accept it, then I’m not sure what you’ve been arguing with me for. I tend to assume that a person’s first response is more indicative of his or her true position though, so maybe you were just now experiencing a moment of cognitive dissonance.

I’m not misconstruing you, you’re doing it to yourself — You can’t argue against something one moment and for it the next without conceding the point.

I was not nit-picking when I corrected your mistake. Clearly, “creation of a biological organism de novo is not only possible but has happened often throughout natural history” is not a creationist claim. The “de novo” event happened once, not “thoughout natural history.” I’m not sure where you came up with that one.

I don’t particularly care whether you believe in God or not, but I do, which means that I have a rational mechanism, whether or not scientific, for the beginning of the universe and life itself. Nontheists are still working on that.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Apparently, you don’t read your skeptical literature. Even this statement has run into flack. A better statement would be “Extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence.” So, while “microevolutionary” mechanisms are recognized for speciation by both evolutionists and creationists, the evolutionary claims for greater changes (e.g., invertebrate to vertebrate, reptile to bird, etc.) are extraordinary claims that lack, to the creationist’s mind, sufficient evidence. You may disagree, but you’re not going to change anyone’s mind by creating straw man arguments.

In any case, as noted previously, my real interest in your article was to point out that your conclusions regarding what creationists believe about speciation were incorrect. You appear to be ignoring that, but I guess since we are the “enemy,” it doesn’t matter what you print about us.

Don’t worry, I won’t bother you again on this. I just hope that you come to realize that we really aren’t the enemy, and that we do, in fact, appreciate the natural world and its (proven) processes as much as you do. The unproven theoretical areas really aren’t worth the antagonism too often engendered.

Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, by Eugenie C. Scott.

It’s quite a fascinating read.

Special Creation does not infer that every species was created individually.

You’re nit-picking. But regardless of whether it refers to “every species” or “every kind,” it does mean very literally that creation of a biological organism de novo is not only possible but has happened often throughout natural history. How though? Magic? In the absence of a mechanism for any instance of special creation beyond “goddidit,” and in the presences of a mechanism for the growth of biological diversity through speciation as provided by evolution, insistence of even the possibility of special creation is an extraordinary claim. And as Sagan famously said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Phylogenetic discontinuity means that there is no common ancestry of all species.

Similarly, the universal genetic code and biochemistry of all cells, not known during Darwin’s time, provides an argument for the common relationship of all life on Earth. Given that you already accept that speciation is uncontroversial, it is a very extraordinary claim indeed for you to argue that common ancestry between higher taxa is problematic whilst it is not between lower taxa. Where do you wish to draw the line between taxa where your “discontinuities” are? … extraordinary evidence please………

This is why we shouldn’t believe everything we read on Wikipedia, heh. Special Creation does not infer that every species was created individually. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, writers sometimes confound what creationists do or do not believe. Even then, there are as many different kinds of creationists, even “special” creationists, as there are evolutionists, so it is difficult to make blanket statements in any case.

For (“special”) creationists (including those from groups like AiG, ICR, CRS, CMI, etc.) who go by a literal reading of Scripture (there’s actually a more accurate term for this than “literal,” but that’s a different subject), we understand that the word species does not appear in Genesis. Instead, it says that every “kind” had young after its own kind. Kind does not equate with species, but is a larger grouping. (This can be determined by looking at the dietary laws of clean/unclean animal kinds given to Israel in Leviticus. Obviously, species are too small a grouping for what is noted.) So, there is no reason for a creationist to believe that speciation (or higher differentiations) cannot occur.

The idea of fixity of species didn’t start with religious institutions, anyway — it emerged from the Aristotelian “great chain of being” concept. The medieval church, unfortunately, took on a number of early Greek ideas and tried to fit them into Western religion.

Phylogenetic discontinuity means that there is no common ancestry of all species. Instead of a single global “bush of life” (as evolutionists suggest), there are multiple global “bushes of life” where differentiation (including speciation) has occurred over a period of time throughout the planet. This is a very different concept from “centers of creation,” where certain types were suggested to have been created in different parts of the world at different times.

In other words, under phylogenetic discontinuity, all owls had a common ancestor and differentiated through natural selection, etc., as they occupied new niches, and underwent other ecological and biogeographical processes. Under the “centers of creation” concept, different owls at different times in different lands were created. That isn’t what modern creationists believe (even in the past, that was primarily an argument put forward by individuals who held to deep time and a non-literal Genesis, but still found themselves arguing against Darwin on principle).

So, the gist is that the primary points of difference between an evolutionist and a young-earth creationist would be a) deep time vs 6-10,000 years, b) uniformitarian geological processes vs a global catastrophic deluge event, and c) common ancestry of all organisms vs phylogenetic discontinuity.

There’s very little to differentiate an evolutionist from a creationist when it comes to natural processes like speciation. And, certainly there is nothing about your final three questions that a creationist (special or otherwise) would not be able to comprehend and discuss. Again, we do not “deny that speciation occurs.”

(On a side note, rapid speciation events are of great interest to creationists, and regard some studies on such events in island endemic birds as particularly interesting.)

Believe it or not, there are professional ornithologists who are creationists. Years ago, I talked to a PhD who worked out of Louisiana State University’s Museum of Natural Science who was a creationist. I think his focus was on South American birds.

Chad