In a recent post, I mentioned a creation vs. evolution class being taught
at my church, which I have been attending. This past week, we watched the
video "The Evolution Conspiracy," which features a number of creationists
(including John Morris, I believe, son of Henry?) and several evolutionists
(none of whom were familiar to me, but they seemed to have decent
credentials). Some comments:
1) The video was slick. The creationists would make a point, and then they
would cut to an evolutionist putting his foot in mouth, or contradicting
himself. When you just sit and watch it, it is very convincing. Everyone
I talked to afterwards thought it was great. One young woman was going to
buy it.
I wonder at the evolutionists who appeared in the film. Surely they
realized that their presentations would be edited and that the final
message of the film would strongly contradict their position. I wonder
then, why they let themselves be interviewed? Did they have any say in how
their parts appeared in the final product?
2) One of the big points made has to do with the lack of transitional
forms. The creationists claim there are none. Aside from the pages on the
ASA and on Glenn's site, does anyone know of any good source which
documents and discusses transitional forms? Which transition is the best
documented?
3) RE paleontology, the claim is made that most of the hominid fossil finds
involve only 1 or 2 bones, with the rest being made up. The strong
impression is given that evolutionists create most of any given fossil, and
that many of them are outright frauds (Piltdown Man, Java Man). Can anyone
refute this? For instance, how many complete skeletons do we have for the
various fossil men (and women)? Also, with neanderthal, they claim that
the first finds were individuals with rickets, which made them stooped
over, but really they're just like us. Surely by now there are many good
fossils... is it not true that neanderthal display some distinct
differences from Homo Sapiens? Does anyone know of a good source on the
topic of fossil man? (Glenn, does your book address any of these aspects?)
Regarding the early cases of fraud, I have always been under the impression
that other evolutionary scientists brought these cases to light. Is this
correct?
4) Is anyone aware of a critical treatment of this film? Essay, review?
I must say that the film did such a good job of making scientists in
general look suspect, that I doubt any objection or critique would have
carried much weight. Seems to me that a well-produced and interesting
video from the other side (e.g., the ASA!) would be a very useful tool.
And I must say the internet resources are extremely helpful. Tonight I
spent several hours printing out essays from Glenn's, Steve Schimmrich's,
and the ASA site. The best articles will be given to my SS teacher in the
event he's interested.
Any thoughts or suggestions are welcome.
Dave F.