RE: The wrong horse in evolution education

Hi Peter, you wrote:
 
>>Although I think Rana's interpretation of fossils and genetics (he is
a
biochemist) are very reasonable, I don't agree with his rejection of
evolution
(the creation model of Reasons to Believe is an old-earth-creationism
non-evolutionary one). Rana even discusses the transposon evidence for
common
descent quite convincingly as lacking persuasive evolutionary
implications (he
argues that some of the common "errors" have been shown to be
functional, and
all of them might be).<<
 
How does he handle a retro viral sequence imbedded in human and chimp
DNA at the same locus point in each? How does he think it got there,
and what functionality would it serve? And how would it be "reasonable"
if he rejects common descent? In spite of his disavowal of a wealth of
evidence that points to mutual-shared common ancestry, yet his
explanation is "reasonable"? Or do you mean that using "fuzzy" logic
Rana makes a simularly clever argument just as Phil Johnson uses the
cunning art of lawyerly persuasion in "Darwin on Trial"? In spite of
being dead wrong Rana sounds right? Is that what you meant?
 
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/>
 
Received on Fri Apr 14 15:48:17 2006