> Unfortunately, this 5% is where intelligent design claims are
>sometimes demonstrably wrong, i.e., when they closely resemble standard
>disproven "young earth evidence". "Creation Hypothesis" (Moreland, ed.),
>for example, includes a discussion of "Macrobiogeography" [e.g., marsupials
>in Australia versus placental mammals elsewhere] that overlooks plate
>tectonics and is fooled by common names [Australian "possums" are no closer
>to American "possums" than humans to lemurs]. Darwin on Trial contained a
>bit on gaps in the fossil record of whales. Since then, the gaps were
>filled in; obviously the first edition is not at fault for omitting these,
>but has there been any mention of this in his more recent books? [I don't
>know-this is not a rhetorical condemnation but an actual question.]
It was not mentioned in the 1993 edition of DOT. Secondly, what he says
about whales is wrong, and was known to be wrong in 1991. He writes:
"A Darwinist can imagine that a mutant rodent might appear with a
web between its toes, and thereby gain some advantage in the
struggle for survival, with the result that the new characteristic
could spread through the population to await the arrival of further
mutations leading eventually to winged flight."~Phillip E. Johnson,
Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downer's Grove: Intervarsity Press,
1993), p. 104
Rodents did not give rise to Whales. Mesonychids did. Mesonychids were a
carnivorous animal which had a characteristic hoof on each finger. The
earliest whales, the ones with legs, also had these characteristic hooves on
each digit. Why Johnson would mess up on such a simple fact and never
correct it, I don't know. If one wants to critique a theory, like evolution,
it would be useful to get the theories positions straight.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm