(February 8, 2010 at 5:10 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(February 8, 2010 at 4:35 pm)rjh4 Wrote: If that is all that is meant by evolution...then I wholeheartedly agree (in which case, I could be considered both a creationist and an evolutionist).

You misunderstand me. What I said was that even if God had created the first life forms, it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution isn't concerned with how life got here, only how life has diversified. What the evidence does show, is that all life is related to a single ancestor. Whether this ancestor was the first life, or whether there were lots of other life forms that simply died out, and this was the only to survive, is unknown.

Quote:But I do not think many evolutionary scientists would agree with you. If one took your view, there would not be much debate between evolutionists and creationists. Creationists think that there were many different initial life forms created by God and would agree that the life forms that we see today descended from those initial life forms.

My position was a hypothetical, nothing more. It didn't say God created anything, nor did it say that there were more than one first life form. If God created the single cell as the first life form, then what we see in the animal kingdom today is everything that evolved from that point. If God created lots of different types of life, then all those died out, leaving one which survived and evolved.

It is highly likely from the evidence at hand that only one life form emerged, and this evolved into every organism we see today.

Quote:I wonder what would happen if someone tried to explain evolution in a schoolbook such that it covered the situation where there were multiple initial life forms. Would the governments/courts allow this?

Yes. It's a valid theory, as long as they mentioned the conclusions we can draw form this (i.e. that all life today is related to only one common ancestor, not to several. As I said, whether there was only one or multiple life forms is unknown. The evidence points to one, but it is possible others existed and died out.

Quote:I wonder what would happen if a scientist tried to publish a paper in a scientific journal using such a broad definition of evolution. Would it pass peer review?

What broad definition? That organisms adapt, change, evolve? That isn't a broad definition...that's a simplistic definition. I doubt a scientist would put it in those terms to begin with.

Quote:It would sure eliminate much of the conflict. But I think evolutionary scientists would balk at such a teaching since evolution as it is taught in schools is "common descent", meaning ALL life forms have a common anscestor.

What is taught it what the evidence shows, that all life has a single common ancestor. As I said before, the only way in which there could be multiple common ancestors would be if that ancestor died out very early on, taking all of its descendants with it.

Quote:Would you support teaching evolution in that manner in schools?

That wouldn't be teaching evolution, but rather abiogenesis. The creation of life has nothing to do with the diversity of life. You can hypothesise upon abiogenesis producing multiple organisms, but the theory of evolution as it stands only supports one common descendant. The evidence simply doesn't show any others.