Pat Buchanan has written a fantastic article entitled Tom Bethell Puts Darwinism on Defense. Of course, he is referring to Bethel’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, which among other things, slams Darwinism as a theory of origins. Buchanan’s article is well said and clear. Here’s my favorite portion:There are other questions Darwinists need to answer. If believing that Christ raised people from the dead is a matter of faith — and it is — is not the Darwinist claim that nature created life out of non-life a matter of faith? If it is science, why can’t scientists replicate it in microcosm in a laboratory?If scientists know life came from matter and matter from non-matter, why don’t they show us how this was done, instead of asserting it was done, and calling us names for not taking their claims on faith?
Clearly, a continued belief in the absolute truth of Darwinist evolution is but an act of faith that fulfills a psychological need of folks who have rejected God.
My sentiments exactly.
So, you don’t understand either evolution or capitalism?
As the Bible says, evolution works for those who understand it just as it works for those who don’t understand it. You can’t stop evolution any more than you can stop the rain.
But is ignorance really a hallmark Christians should seek?
No, I understand evolution – I just don’t believe it, nor in it.
The fact that most evolutionists can’t (won’t) separate scientific evidence from historic, nor philosophy from science, nor assumptions from facts makes it very hard to argue with them. It’s like arguing w/ a fundamentalist who can’t see his assumptions, and believes despite the evidence.
Perhaps you’d like to give a reference for your silly quote about evolution in the bible.
I don’t have to stop evolution – it never happened. The idea of evolution, however, is in full steam, but I expect in my lifetime to see it in semi-retreat. It has little merit as science, less as philosophy (social darwinism is a real winner, as is atheistic materialistic naturalism).
Evolutionists like to paint their opponents as ignorant rubes who don’t believe the obvious, and who “don’t understand science,” but the growing number of intelligent people and scientists who find evolution dubious will eventually put that type of cocky superiority complex in its place.
The fact is, we do understand science, but don’t understand why evolutionists are so dogmatic about what is obviously not science. The only explanation – they have not really examined their assumptions, like immature religionists, and defend it because they are threatened by any contrary ideas. That’s how it looks from this side (and I was a well trained evolutionist before I examined the data for myself).
There is not a growing number of people who reject evolution — it's shrinking. The 400 or so scientists the Discovery Institute duped into signing a maudlin letter have been asking their names be removed as they discover what the DI is really up to.
I don't like to paint evolution opponents as ignorant rubes — but usually they do that on their own. It's really quite sad: Evolution isn't difficult to understand, and it says nothing against the faith. Evolution is the basis for modern medicine and much of modern agriculture (not to mention other "non-evolution" contributions of Darwin and others whose work makes modern agriculture go). Evolution gave us understanding of the cause of diabetes, and treatment for it in the form of insulin from domestic animals; and now gives us actual human insulin to treat the disease. Evolution gives us hope to eradicate the cotton boll weevil. Evolution gives us understanding of the spread of avian influenza (and all others, too), and is the forefront of our defense against most infectious diseases. Evolution is the basis for cancer cures and treatments.
If you really think that you can live without evolution, I dare you to swear off modern medicine. If your faith is that the science is wrong, don't put it in your body; whatever the oncologist tells you will save your life or the life of your loved one, laugh in the oncologist's face and tell him that evolution is a farce. Forego the treatment. I dare you.
Nor do most opponents of evolution understand the policies they complain against. We're not being "dogmatic about what is obviously not science." We're asking that science education not be diluted, and especially not diluted with religiously motivated junk science. That's fair. That's all we ask.
It's also the law, and it's a wise law.
Were you a well-trained evolutionist? Then why do you say you don't "believe it," when you know that it asks your skepticism, and no belief at all?
Bet you can't outline the natural selection in the modern synthesis, in either the four-step or five-step model.
Ed, let’s not confuse the problems of ID with the problems of evolutionary theory. Just because ID has flaws doesn’t make evolution unflawed, or even better than ID, nor our “best model to date.”
I’d also appreciate it if people would stop conflating ID and creationism – despite the overlap, they are not synonymous, nor is ID merely a creationist ruse to get into the schools – it may be that in part, but to reduce it to that is dishonest and untrue.
1. Evolution is not hard to understand
Actually, because the term “evolution” is used to mean many different things, including generic change, adaptation, natural selection, speciation, and macroevolution, discussions and arguments around evolution are anything but easy to understand.
I mean, you want me to spout the four or five step model for evolution – do you think that is easy enough that the average person should have to know that too?
I just purchased Mayr’s What is Evolution so that, despite my degree in Biochemistry, I can be sure of not being called a rube when I challenge evolutionary premises. Reading this book makes me see that evolution is *not* simple, but actually, it presents a simple picture with hundreds of qualifying statements that indicate to me that the historical evidence shows more exceptions than confirmation – a sure sign that the theory is not lacking detail, but lacking accuracy, and having to make up more rules to account for the gap between the theory and what we observe.
2. Evolution Says Nothing About Faith
Directly, evolution says nothing about faith. But indirectly, it has significant consequences and impacts to faith, and to ignore these is to be willfully ignorant or dishonest.
First, evolutionary theory is consistent with atheism, so much so that Dawkins has famously said “it was impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” before evolutionary theory came along. Being a major philosophic pillar of atheism certainly does impact faith.
Second, evolutionary theology conflicts with biblical theology – not just with creationist ideas, but with the theology of what God is like, how He interacts with humanity, the origins of death and disease, not to mention biblical principles of government and social policy (think “social Darwinism”).
Now, evolution is consistent *with* some theologies, including atheism and theistic evolution, so it is not explicitly anti-faith. But it is not faith neutral.
3. Evolution is the basis for modern medicine and much of modern agriculture
Actually, I think this is one of the most inaccurate claims of evolutionists. Genetics and chemistry (esp. protein chemistry) may be central to modern medicine and ag, but as I argued in Evolution contributes nothing to medicine, evolution has not only NOT contributed anything to science, evolution has more likely hindered science.
In fact, all of your examples of evolution just sound like discoveries we have made due to similarities between animal and human systems – but that in no way proves evolution, any more than it proves that all the animals were made by the same designer – you assume evolution to prove it. And don’t forget, most of sciences greatest discoveries, including all of those made before Darwin, and most afterwards (not least of which is the structure of DNA) were made without evolution as a backdrop, and most *with* a more creationist-like view.
4. Giving up evolution = giving up medicine?
As I mentioned, most, if not ALL of modern science and its discoveries exist independent of evolutionary thought, and NONE require evolution as a prerequisite assumption. While you may think evolution is foundational to science, your supporting evidence is not yet convincing, and certainy not definitive. Perhaps you could direct me to more specific explanations of how evolutionary logic produced these modern medical solutions.
People who don’t buy into evolution are not logically required to give up medicine, science, or any other field of science or knowledge – that is really a non-sequitur, because evolution is, in my mind, not really integrated with any other valid sciences, so its failure only pulls down other false systems of thought, like social darwinism or atheism. Science is great, but evolution is not science, but philosophy of science. Intelligent people can abandon evolution without abandoning reason or proven science – in fact, intelligent people *should* ;).
5. Why I doubt evolution
Let’s put it this way. Scientific skepticism caused me to doubt, and entirely abandon evolution as a theory of origins. My approach to creationism is scientific, but since most evolutionists are unable to separate their faith and philosophical assumptions from their practice of science, so I suspect that most evolutionists will not even be willing to try to understand how you can be a creationist and a scientist at the same time.
6. Outlining Evolution
Let me finish Mayr’s book, and I’ll get back to you. Until then, I am waiting to hear better arguments for evolution’s necessity as a theory. Mostly, I see what amounts to religious dogmatism and orthodoxy in modern evolutionary thinking.
1. Evolution is easy to understand, yes, but you don't give the appearance of having such understanding. In your linked post, you even conflate the usual creationist misunderstandings by claiming speciation is microevolution — I suppose you think macroevolution is cats being birthed by elephants and fish? Oy!
Yes, the five-step model is easy enough that any student who took evolution in high school, where the subject was seriously taught, should be able to list it. I suppose all this indicates is that evolution is taught poorly. You have a degree in biochemistry and don't know evolution? That's rather like someone having a degree in finance and not knowing who Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich von Hayek were. One can probably function in the discipline, but much of it will remain murky and beyond comprehension.
Moreover, when one understands the simple model, one can plainly see why intelligent design ravings are beside the point. ID doesn't change any of the things that make evolution work, and consequently it says nothing serious about evolution. (That most IDists hitch their caboose to the anti-evolution screeds of the 1960s evolution deniers only confuses things, sure — but the IDists remain the most confused.)
2. Evolution is consistent with Christianity, first and foremost. Evolution was posited originally by a disaggregated group of Christian scholars, all of whom started from the Christian faith assumption that God created, and consequently, what nature manifests is accurate and true since it is touched by the hand of God, and God is not a deceiver.
The design argument was a powerful argument against atheism in the 18th century. Why you would cling to it now is a bit of a mystery. It's not necessary. Yes, evolution, if it functioned wholly without divine intervention, would make it possible for atheists to sleep at night not having to worry about how to rebut an argument from design. But so what? Is it your contention that the argument from design is all Christianity has? For that argument to have any traction, one must ignore the entire New Testament. I don't, and I'm not sure why you worry about atheists who do.
Evolution has nothing to do with atheism for most people. The 19th century growth of atheism was prompted prior to Darwin, and chiefly prompted by the wretched behaviors of self-proclaimed Christians who managed large factories brutally, who created workhouses for the poor that brutalized families rather than helped them, by slavery endorsed by Christians, etc., etc.
Evolution says absolutely nothing about the nature of God directly. Indirectly it might provide evidence that God is extremely patient, extremely far-sighted, and extremely dedicated to free will and free enterprise — but nothing of that contradicts any Christian statement about the nature of God. God is not rash, short-sighted and totalitarian, at least not to most Christians.
The Bible is not of one story about the origins of death and disease, nor is Christianity. Of course, evolution does enable us to continue the healing ministry of Jesus. I suppose that you had not thought through the notion that Jesus' healing ministry itself would say the same things "contrary to God's nature" that evolution does. Christian theology is solid enough that science discoveries pose not threat to Christians who have faith in the theological messages of scripture and tradition. If you choose to try to make it a science statement instead, however, you could have problems. Among other problems, you'd be practicing close to the line of heresy.
"Social Darwinism," that philosohy that so enraptures Christian pastors like D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and George W. Bush, has nothing to do with Darwinism. Check your history. Herbert Spencer devised the term, naming a philosophy he had devised a decade or so prior to the publication of Darwin's evolution work. It has nothing to do with biology, and that you confuse and conflate the two is further evidence of the lack of understanding of what evolution theory is.
Ignorance and advocacy of ignorance isn't faith neutral, either. It's definitely not Christian. Opposing the teaching of solid science is to promote ignorance. No Christian should be on that side.
I'll stop here for the moment. I plan to return.
I always wonder what sort of odd churches are attended by people who claim the science of evolution strikes them as religiously dogmatic.
As to the 3rd point, only incredible denial can come close to missing the role of evolution in modern medicine. From the discovery of the cause to the development of treatment to the modern use of genetically engineered treatments, diabetes’ modern treatment is entirely based in applied evolution theory. And that’s just one of hundreds of examples. Evolution is essential to understanding modern control of influenza (or attempts to control it), the progress of HIV infections and how to treat them, malaria, and dozens of other diseases. Evolution casts bright, clear light on ancient troubles, too, such as fever and allergic reactions. You could study the topic; but you cannot get modern medical treatment without partaking of the benefits of applied evolution theory. (Here’s an introductory website: http://www.darwinianmedicine.org/)
Prior to applied evolution in medicine there were a few accidental discoveries of cures; with Darwinian principles applied, medical treatments and cures occur at a pace not even imaginable a century ago.
That animals are human analogs is an evolutionary realization. Perhaps medicine would have eventually discovered that principle without evolution, but the fact remains that it didn’t. And even had medicine made that discovery without evolution, the fact that animals are human analogs corroborates evolution exactly, and denies intelligent design or any other form of creationism (except the Deceiver God hypothesis, of course). The claim that a bumbling designer simply duplicated blueprints is an insult to all faiths, and not worthy of consideration here.
It is not just happenstance that those animals most closely related to humans are the best analogs for human anatomy, development, and disease acquisition. That is exactly what we’d expect from evolution, and it is accurate to an almost-perfect degree, in an evolutionary framework.
The list of ‘the greatest scientists and discoveries is puerile and wrong. The list claims that Carl Linne was a creationist, for example; well, he was Christian. But his system of categorizing animals pointed exactly to evolution, and he understood that. To claim that he would reject his life’s work to adopt creationism is silly, and completely unsupportable. Similarly, Pasteur did not wish to grant Darwin credence, and he had doubts about evolution; but he did not deny it, and after the Catholic Church asked that Pasteur’s work be stopped (on creationist grounds, oddly enough), it was Darwin who rose to Pasteur’s rescue. Darwin understood the importance of Pasteur’s work, even when creationism rejected it. Claiming Pasteur’s work as anti-Darwin is simply misunderstanding, or mis-stating, what Pasteur did, why, and the results of it. Mendel’s work demonstrated that Darwin was right, and it pointed the way to the discovery of the packets of heritage Darwin postulated (“gemmules” Darwin called them).
The incluson of William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, is either laughably erroneous, or a stupid attempt to cover up the facts. The bio at that site is ineptly erroneous, too.
Lord Kelvin did not contest that the Earth was millions of years old. He started as low as 20 millions of years for the Earth, but ultimately caculated in the hundreds of millions of years, based on his measurement of the temperature of the Earth as measured in mines. Lord Kelvin knew the Earth was largely iron, and so he calculated how long it would take a white hot body of iron the size of the Earth to cool to current temperature. These numbers devastated 6,000-year believers, the few who existed at the time. But they were not enough to account for the diversity of life that Darwin had already catalogued. Lord Kelvin did not oppose evolution, but he did not think there was enough time for the full diversity of life to evolve. His calculations for th age of the Sun, which he put at 200 million years, were done on the same model — he assumed the sun was a body of iron, and he calculated how long it would take a white-hot body of iron that large to cool to the Sun’s current color.
When Rutherford figured out that the Earth is heated by radioactivity, it nullified Lord Kelvin’s figures. Darwin, it turned out, was much closer to the accurate numbers, working solely from what he knew of geology and the life found in fossil form. (There is a famous story of Rutherford presenting his findings, and realizing Lord Kelvin was in the audience — noting that Lord Kelvin’s figures shouldn’t be considered “wrong,” but merely updated; Lord Kelvin thanked Rutherford; Darwin was decades in the grave). And of course, the Sun is not composed of iron, but hydrogen.
To claim Lord Kelvin as a great defender of creationism rather misses his role as falsifier of the young Earth; and to claim Lord Kelvin’s superiority when Darwin was right in their dispute — well, creationists who do not care about either science or accuracy would be expected to make such blunders. Christians might be expected to correct the errors, and stick to the side of historical accuracy, at least.
But the bottom line is that most of those scientists had nothing to do with biology. Those who did have something to do with biology didn’t dispute Darwin, and some of them (like Linne) discovered relationships that Darwin’s theory explains, and intelligent design cannot.
People who do not “believe” the facts of science and evolution are not required to give up the fruits, no. Scientists are much more altruistic than creationists in many regards, and that is one more. As I noted, evolution works for the just and the unjust alike, just as the rain falls. That one does not “believe” in evolution does not change the fact that one is descended with modifications from one’s parents, in Darwinian style, and that one’s children will also, in Darwinian style, be descended with modifications, from one.
Have a good read with Mayr’s book. You’ll be offended by his religious beliefs. I would urge you to not let that color your understanding of his science, but I suspect I’m urging to the wind.
1. Evolution is not easy to understand
I’m sure your understanding of evolution is much more mature and nuanced than mine. You’ll have to excuse my confusing microevolution with speciation. But that’s the whole point, I suppose – if someone with a biochem degree can get tripped up by the many (sloppy) uses of the word “evolution”, do you really think that any “idiot” should be able to understand it?
By the way, the underlying statement in such an assumption is that if people don’t understand it, they are somehow stupid – or at least, not as smart as the people who swallow evolutionary assumptions because some high priests of evolution said so.
In fact, the whole attitude of “anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution is just ignoring the evidence or a stoopid religious rube” is getting tiring – really, this is just an ad hominem, intellectual bullying tactic by those who can’t handle the valid critisisms and severe gaps in evolutionary evidence – in what we actually observe in nature and the fossil record.
Now, I’m not saying that evolution has no evidence to support it, but it’s just not that concvincing, for many reasons.
1. Macroevolution is nonobservable, and therefore, not science.
2. The fossil record, plus modern genetics do not support macroevolution any better than they support creationism – your interpretation of the evidence hinges on your assumptions.
3. Adaptation, natural selection, even speciation, are NOT evidence of evolution, since these processes also fit within a creationist framework.
You made a lot of nice points, but much of it was nitpicking and faultfinding with a few specifics rather than making a convincing case. There is only so much you can do in a blog comment, I know, but I think my arguments stand.
1. Evolution is not faith neutral, and it’s implications, which are ignored by evolutionary faithful, can not be ingnored. These implications are not in harmony with other established fields of study, including but not limited to palaentology, geology, sociology, and theology. I see you take issue with that. Fine.
2. Scripture is not just about theology
You are correct that science does not challenge theology – but only when the science and theology are correct. You are wrong in assuming that scripture is only theological, and has nothing to say about science, history, politics, relationships, or any other facet of life. There is a name for this theological error (which escapes me), but books like Pearcy’s Total Truth are addressing the ideas that try to isolate faith from other truth disciplines. That’s a mistake.
Now, some hyperliteralists (called “biblicists”) may read science into passages that don’t warrant it, but that doesn’t mean that historical narratives in the bible are made up, or merely metaphorical. Nor does it mean that the phenomenological writings of the scripture are not recording actual happenings that can be confirmed by modern science.
3. Evolutionary assumptions that lead to discoveries do not prove evolution
By that logic, those discoveries based on creationism proved creationism. Now, we all know that a model’s predictive value helps us determine it’s value, but again, the particular examples you mention, while interesting, do not prove that the model is right, only that we can learn something about humans by studying other “similar” organisms.
You say this is so because of common ancestor, I say common designer. You claim that common ancestor is more scientific because it proposes a natural process. I say that your natural process is contradictory to what we observe in nature and geology, and that my assuption is more in keeping with what we observe in nature.
In fact, my previous examples of how evolution has hindered discovery also provoke the question – maybe your model just got lucky ;).
CONCLUSION
Look Ed, you sound intelligent. But I think that creation science, both old and young earth, are credible as theories of origins which can be tested as other scientific models can. Evolution, to me, is quite INcredible, and contradicts some science and quite probably, Christian theology – not just hyperliteral, backwards, anti-science theology, but balanced, intellectual, biblical theology. Of course, it does not contradict liberal theology, but then again, liberal theology is mostly humanism with God’s name pasted on top, and not really intellectually consistent, or really Christian except in the loosest sense.
Neither the original creation, nor macroevolution, can be proved by exprimentation – that relegates both to the realm of philosophy of science, not science. Those who claim that evolution is TRUTH, and who belligerently attack all who question it, are in my mind, not motivated by a zeal for truth, but by some other motives. Maybe they need evolution to be true to keep god out. Maybe they think they are protecting science from religion (in some cases, they may be – but having a creationist world view is not defacto religion – it’s merely a starting assumption upon which we can build a scientific model). But they are not interested in valid criticisms (other than small ones that call for readjusting their theory) that threaten their world view. Their religious fervor seems obvious to those of us who are not believers.
You said:
"The idea of evolution, however, is in full steam, but I expect in my lifetime to see it in semi-retreat. It has little merit as science, less as philosophy (social darwinism is a real winner, as is atheistic materialistic naturalism)."
—
I have to ask you, seriously…do you believe this? Why is "atheistic materialistic naturalism" (better phrased as simple materialism, since that implies atheism and naturalism…) not a "winner"? Every intelligent person I know, and almost every philosopher I know, would disagree with your assessment of it as a "loser". Every intelligent theist I know admits ontological materialism *makes sense*, but they choose to believe there is an unknowable, unprovable, unevidenced sky daddy nonetheless.
Did you go to college? Study what? Just curious, not *ad hominem*.
No, I understand evolution – I just don't believe it, nor in it.-Seeker
If one understands Evolution ,how it works, how it is tested ,how it is used by scientists to make useful predictions,the time scales involved ,the mountains of fossil evidence ,the genetic evidence ,the corroborating geological evidence ,you KNOW it maps directly onto reality. It can be tested and confirmed by experiment. Repeatedly!
You don`t have to believe it! ,or in it!, it is a demonstrated fact . There is no controversy here . If you can`t integrate this into your worldview, then your worldview is probably false. If you can`t revise your worldview, you are hopelessly trapped in an irrational mindset .
how it is tested
My contention, and that of the creationist movement, is that it can not be tested. Sure, you can test adaptation, speciation, and natural selection, but these processes are all accepted in the creationist model as well – they are no more evidence of evolution than finding a fossil in the strata.
how it is used by scientists to make useful predictions
As I have discussed in previous posts, evolution contributes almost nothing to scientific discovery (don't forget, much of the founding discoveries of science were made without it), and in fact, it may hinder science.
the time scales involved
These have nothing to do with the voracity of evolution – there are old earth creationists who doubt evolution regardless of the timeline.
the mountains of fossil evidence
Mountains? You've been lied to. If you look merely at the human fossil record, you will see that it's a molehill. The saga of Lucy and other human fossils is typical of the vast extrapolation that evolutionists perform on fossil evidences, making mountains out of molehills of evidence.
the genetic evidence
If you are talking about similarity, that's not good enough to prove anything. The genetic evidence rests on evolutionary assumptions, and is just not compelling. In fact, there is also genetic evidence contrary to evolution.
the corroborating geological evidence
You mean the many missing links? The wonderful library of transitional fossils? Please. There are also plenty of evidences from the geological record against evolution. Sorry to tell you, it's not conslclusive, but quite the opposite.
But it sounds like you've drunk the cool aid.
1. Macroevolution is nonobservable, and therefore, not science. -Seeker
Although information in experimental science is acquired through observation, the observation of a great amount of indirect evidence of a process makes as good a scientific case as the direct observation of a process. As Michael Ruse asks, “[t]he evidence that I have a heart is all indirect, neither I nor anyone else ever seen it, but does anyone really believe that it is not a fact that I have a heart?” (Ruse 1982:58). In the same way, there is sufficient evidence for macroevolution that it can safely be considered a fact without direct observation of the process occurring in our time. We need not, as many unsophisticated creationists put it, observe cats changing into dogs right before our eyes, in order to have a good case for macroevolution. -Mark I. Vuletic
Mountains (of fossil evidence)? You’ve been lied to. If you look merely at the human fossil record, you will see that it’s a molehill. -Seeker
Alright, lets look at the little “molehill”…
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens
– I got all of the above from talkorigins.org
Holy crap that’s a lot of fossils and only just the major finds! Well Seeker, can you explain to me the “vast extrapolation” performed on each of these fossils? How does creationism explain these fossils, by the way? Are they all really just Homo Sapiens and scientists have lied to the world by claiming otherwise over the past century?
I’m glad this post came up. Ed Darrell made some great points you didn’t address very well. I liked this especially…
Evolution is easy to understand, yes, but you don’t give the appearance of having such understanding. In your linked post, you even conflate the usual creationist misunderstandings by claiming speciation is microevolution — I suppose you think macroevolution is cats being birthed by elephants and fish? Oy! -Ed Darrell
Every intelligent theist I know admits ontological materialism *makes sense*
It makes some sense, but when applied to the real world, it leads to hopelessness, not to mention lovely atheistic ideas like communism, socialism, and other oppressive systems where man is the last word in ethics and morality.
Other ontological systems make sense too, but that doesn't make them true either. But they often can be integrated with more meaningful and helpful world views.
Did you go to college? Study what?
I have two bachelors degrees, one in biochemistry, and the other in chemistry. I have 5 years of clinical cancer research under my belt. However, i left the life sciences for computing about 12 years ago b/c the life-sciences just didn't pay well without a Ph.D., and I was not willing to put in 10 years in that discipline.
I have 1/2 of a Master's in Counseling, but quit because I had to support a family, and times got hard financially. I am hoping to return to school for an M. Div., and hopefully, a Ph.D., but with two young children, it's just not possible.
Nice list. So if i put up a long list of fossils and said they supported creationism, would that be impressive?
As Lubenow shows in his book, many of these fossils are not only incomplete, but interpreted in a way that assumes evolution, when in reality, they are often merely simian or fully human, and naught inbetween except by the fancy of the geologist and the artist who has to compose a picture of them.
You really want to go through the effort of deconstructing each fossil above?
At least you don't deny that macroevolution is science anymore. Am I hoping for too much to think you accept the argument I posted?
So if i put up a long list of fossils and said they supported creationism, would that be impressive?
I would love to see it. Let me guess, just a skeleton of Homo sapiens? All the fossils I list support the evolution of mankind, ie. they change over time. The sites author has nice links responding to creationists arguments for the respective fossils. It's a big list Seeker and that's just for man. All told, it's a mountain of evidence, just as Richard pointed out. Yet you deny it ALL :) Please, show me some fossil evidence for creation theory and support it.