>Dismissing for the moment your ad hominem arguments (I thought better of
>you!), It will always be possible to interpret the trackways or anything
>else as something other than what the preponderance of the evidence
>suggests, particularly in the area of earth history. And you could be
>right. Having worked with Brand in the field on occasions, I have seen
>trackways consisting only of manus imprints moving horizontally across the
>foreset slopes. I have seen (and in fact discovered) the trackway that
>floats diagonally across the slab on the North Kaibab trail. Lockley's ad
>hoc arguments are certainly amusing, and Brand has responded to them in
>print. If he had actually seen the trackways in question, he would have
>had to deal differently with them. You really should read Brand's book,
>rather than just attacking his motives. He is very clear about all of the
>concerns you have in print. And you would have learned that Brand is not
>out to "prove" anything about a global flood or "disprove" evolution. His
>motives are very clear. I hope people will examine their own after reading
>his book.
While I would agree with the many comments that what one preferrs to believe
does not disprove what is advocated (and is thus an ad hominem), I would not
agree with Art in his statement "that Brand is not out to 'prove' anything
about a global flood or 'disprove' evolution". I am about halfway through
Brand's book now (have to finish it this week end and give it back. I have
found several statements that would contradict the above. Brand, Faith
Reason and Earth History, 1997, has an entire chapter, chapter 16-A
Catastrophic Theory of Earth History, which is on the flood. I haven't read
that chapter yet but it starts,
"This chapter presents an approach to interpreting the evidence in terms of
what may have happend during a global geolgoical catastrophe. The process
begins at the start of the flood (bottom of the Paleozoic or in the upper
Precambrian and continues through the flood and subsequent events to the
modern world. It is unrealistic to be more specific about the beginning of
the flood until much more research is done to develop the theory further.
This disucussion illustrates how a catastrophic theory can deal with the
data nd yield more specific, testable hypotheses." Brand, Faith Reason and
Earth History, (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1997), p. 285
This certainly sounds like Brand has something to prove about the flood.
From
Earlier in the book Brand says,
"Some of us actually believe that interventionist science ultimately
will be more successful than naturalism because we believe that its
basic tenets are closer to reality. This belief is based now on a
philosophical choice and is criticized for being a religious choice;
so it is. But the only religion worth having is one based on truth.
If people believe their religion is truth and that it offers insights
into earth history, they would be missing something important if they
didn't use it for generating testable scientific hypotheses."~Leonard
Brand, Faith, Reason, and Earth History, (Berrien Springs: Andrews
University Press, 1997), p. 75
and
"When I began to study the fossil vertebrate trackways in this
formation, I had doubts about the desert-dune origin of the tracks,
initially for philosophical reasons, and set out to evaluate
alternate hypotheses for formation fo the tracks. So far, the data
from my study of the tracks support the hypothesis that the fossil
tracks were made underwater. Whether future research continues to
support this hypothesis remains to be seen."~Leonard Brand, Faith,
Reason, and Earth History, (Berrien Springs: Andrews University
Press, 1997), p. 69
Of the flood
"For example, the criticism has been made that rivers, streams, flash
floods, etc., could not deposit so much sediment in a few months or
years. Of course, this criticism ignores the fact that the theory
which puts all of this activity within such a short time does not
rely on present day water systems to do the work. It proposes that
at one time there was a much more catastrophic water flow."~Leonard
Brand, Faith, Reason, and Earth History, (Berrien Springs: Andrews
University Press, 1997), p. 67
And as to evolution Brand wrote:
"If Charles Darwin had examined his Bible and compared it with his
theory, he would have found that although the Bible doesn't say
anything against microevolution and speciation, it clearly states
that the major groups of both plants and animals (including fish,
birds, reptiles, mammals, human beings, and flowering plants [fruit
trees]) were created by the end of creation week. This is definitely
not compatible with part of his evolution theory."~Leonard Brand,
Faith, Reason, and Earth History, (Berrien Springs: Andrews
University Press, 1997), p. 94
Now, I have no problem with someone studying something or looking for
evidence for something based on their philosophical belief. But one must
always be aware that one's philosophy does make one less skeptical on items
that appear to agree with that philosophy.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm