On Fri, 30 Aug 1996 05:34:55, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
GM>The problem is that anti-evolutionists from Gish to Phillip
>Johnson say that there are no transitional forms.
While a YEC like "Gish" must indeed claim that "there are no
transitional forms":
"The world's museums should be bursting at the seams with
enormous collections of the fossils of transitional forms. As a
matter of fact, not a single such fossil has ever been found!"
(Gish D.T., "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics", Institute
for Creation Research: El Cajon CA, 1993, p115)
"If, as evolutionists believe, several millions of species have
gradually evolved during hundreds of millions of years, a vast
number of intermediate stages would have arisen, and the number
of intermediate or transitional forms that would have lived and
died during that enormous stretch of time would have been many
billions times billions, and most likely, times billions again.
If evolution is true, then at least many tens of thousands of the
quarter of a million fossil species in our museums should consist
of unquestionable transitional forms. This would be true even if
one invokes the so-called "punctuated equilibria" mode of
evolution. There would be absolutely no challenge to the fact of
evolution, no Institute for Creation Research, no Creation
Research Society, no scientific creationists...Paleontologists
have searched intensely for the anticipated transitional forms,
but today, about 130 years after Darwin, the "missing links" are
still missing." (Gish D.T., "Creation Scientists Answer Their
Critics", Institute for Creation Research: El Cajon CA, 1993,
p112)
However, Gish qualifies this as only referring to transitions
between "higher categories":
"While transitions at the subspecies level are observable and
some at the species level may be inferred, the absence of
transitional forms between higher categories (the created types
of the creation model) is regular and systematic." (Gish D.,
"Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record", Master Book
Publishers: El Cajon CA, 1986, p229)
This denial of any transitional forms between higher categeories is
because, according to YEC theology: 1. all creatures were created
fully formed in the space of 3 x 24-hour days; 2. there was no death
before the Fall; and 3. Almost all fossils were laid down in the
world-wide Flood of Noah. Therefore if even *one* genuine case of a
"transitional form" between a "higher category" was proven, it would
be fatal to YEC.
However, to claim that an OEC/PC like "Phillip Johnson", also says
that "there are no transitional forms", is to fail to distinguish
between two very different creationist views. OEC/PCs have no need
to deny there are "transitional forms", because according to OEC/PC
theology: 1. all creatures were formed over hundreds of millions of
years; 2. there was both plant and animal death before the Fall; and
3. Fossils were laid down by normal geological processes. Therefore,
if some "transitional forms" are proven, then it would not be fatal
to OEC/PC.
Johnson's argument about "transitional forms" is not that there
are none, but that their extreme rarity does not support the theory
of "blind watchmaker" Neo-Darwinian evolution. Here, in date order,
are all the quotes I can find by "Johnson" about "transitional
forms":
"That there is a controversy over how macroevolution could have
occurred is largely due to the increasing awareness in scientific
circles that THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE IS VERY DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE WITH
THE DARWINIST SCENARIO. If all living species descended from common
ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then THERE ONCE MUST HAVE
EXISTED A VERITABLE UNIVERSE OF TRANSITIONAL INTERMEDIATE FORMS
linking the vastly different organisms of today (e.g., moths, trees,
and humans) with their hypothetical common ancestors. From Darwin's
time to the present, paleontologists have hoped to find the ancestors
and transitional intermediates and trace the course of
macroevolution. Despite claims of success in some areas, however,
the results have been on the whole disappointing. That the fossil
record is in important respects hostile to a Darwinist interpretation
has long been known to insiders as the "trade secret of
paleontology," and the secret is now coming out in the open. New
forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as
fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual
steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, THE
NUMEROUS INTERMEDIATE FORMS THAT ONCE MUST HAVE EXISTED
HAVE NOT BEEN PRESERVED...The fossil evidence in Darwin's time was so
discouraging to his theory that he ruefully conceded: "Nature may
almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her
transitional or linking forms." Leading contemporary paleontologists
such as David Raup and Niles Eldredge say that the fossil problem is
as serious now as it was then, despite the most determined efforts of
scientists to find the missing links. This...explains why many
scientist would dearly love to confirm the existence of natural
mechanisms that can produce basically new forms of life from earlier
and simpler organisms WITHOUT GOING THROUGH ALL THE HYPOTHETICAL
INTERMEDIATE STEPS that classical Darwinism requires." (Johnson P.E.
"Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism", Foundation
for Thought and Ethics, 1990, pp3-4. My emphasis)
"It isn't merely that grand-scale Darwinism can't be confirmed. The
evidence is positively against the theory. For example, if Darwinism
is true then the bat, monkey, pig, seal, and whale all evolved in
gradual adaptive stages from a primitive rodent-like predecessor.
This hypothetical common ancestor must have been connected to its
diverse descendants by LONG LINKING CHAINS OF TRANSITIONAL
INTERMEDIATES WHICH IN TURN PUT OUT INNUMERABLE SIDE BRANCHES.
The intermediate links would have to be adaptively superior to their
predecessors, and be in the process of developing the complex
integrated organs required for aquatic life, flight, and so on.
Fossil evidence that anything of the sort happened is thoroughly
missing." (Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of
Naturalism", Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1990, p35. My
emphasis)
"T. H. Huxley protested against this dogmatic gradualism from the
start, warning Darwin in a famous letter that "You have loaded
yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting natura non facit
saltum so unreservedly." The difficulty was hardly unnecessary,
given Darwin's purpose, but it was real enough. In the long term the
biggest problem was the fossil record, WHICH DID NOT PROVIDE
EVIDENCE OF THE MANY TRANSITIONAL FORMS THAT DARWIN'S
THEORY REQUIRED to have existed. Darwin made the obvious response,
arguing that the evidence was lacking because the fossil record was
incomplete. This was a reasonable possibility at the time, and
conveniently safe from disproof...." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition,
1993, pp33-34. My emphasis)
"Each of the divisions of the biological world (kingdoms, phyla,
classes, orders), it was noted, conformed to a basic structural plan,
WITH VERY FEW INTERMEDIATE TYPES. Where were the links between these
discontinuous groups? The absence of transitional intermediates was
troubling even to Darwin's loyal supporter T. H. Huxley, who warned
Darwin repeatedly in private that a theory consistent with the
evidence would have to allow for some big jumps. Darwin posed the
question himself, asking why, if species have descended from other
species by insensibly fine gradations, DO WE NOT EVERYWHERE SEE
INNUMERABLE TRANSITIONAL FORMS? Why is not all nature in confusion
instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
He answered with a theory of extinction which was the logical
counterpart of "the survival of the fittest." The appearance of an
improved form implies a disadvantage for its parent form. Thus, "if
we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form,
both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally
have been exterminated by the very process of formation and
perfection of the new form." This extermination-by-obsolescence
implies that appearances will be against a theory of evolution in our
living world, because we see distinct, stable species (and larger
groupings), with ONLY RARE INTERMEDIATE FORMS. The links
between the discontinuous groups that once existed have vanished due
to maladaptation. But what if the necessary links are missing not
only from the world of the present, but from the fossil record of the
past as well?...." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove, Ill., Second Edition, 1993, pp46-47. My
emphasis)
"Darwin's theory predicted not merely that fossil transitionals would
be found; it implied that A TRULY COMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD WOULD BE
MOSTLY TRANSITIONALS, and that what we think of as fixed species
would be revealed as mere arbitrary viewpoints in a process of
continual change. Darwinism also implied an important prediction
about extinction, that necessary corollary of the struggle for
existence. Darwin recognized that his theory required a pattern of
extinction even more gradual than the pattern of evolutionary
emergence..." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", Inter Varsity Press:
Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993, pp48-49. My emphasis)
"In short, if evolution means the gradual change of one kind of
mechanism into another kind, THE OUTSTANDING CHARACTERISTIC OF
THE FOSSIL RECORD IS THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION.
Darwinists can always explain away the sudden appearance of new
species by saying that the transitional intermediates were for some
reason not fossilized. But stasis-the consistent absence of
fundamental directional change-is positively documented. It is also
the norm and not the exception." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
Inter Varsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993,
pp50-51. My emphasis)
"An orthodox Darwinist would answer that a direct leap from
unicellular organisms to 25 to 50 complex animal phyla WITHOUT A LONG
SUCCESSION OF TRANSITIONAL INTERMEDIATES is not the sort of thing for
which a plausible genetic mechanism exists, to put it mildly. Gould
is describing something he calls "evolution," but the picture is so
different from what Darwin and his successors had in mind that
perhaps a different term ought to be found...These original Cambrian
groups have no visible evolutionary history, and the "artifact
theory" which would supply such a history has to be discarded. MAYBE
A FEW EVOLUTIONARY INTERMEDIATES EXISTED FOR SOME OF THE
GROUPS, although none have been conclusively identified, but
otherwise just about all we have between complex multicellular animal
and single cells is some words like "fast-transition." We can call
this thoroughly non-Darwinian scenario "evolution," but we are just
attaching a label to a mystery." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
Inter Varsity Press: Downers Grove: Ill., Second Edition, 1993,
p56. My emphasis)
"Paleontologists seem to have thought it their duty to protect the
rest of us from the erroneous conclusions we might have drawn if we
had known the actual state of the evidence. Gould described "THE
EXTREME RARITY OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD"
as "the trade secret of paleontology." Steven Stanley explained that
the doubts of paleontologists about gradualistic evolution were for
long years "suppressed." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p59.
My emphasis)
"We may concede Gould's narrow point, but his more general claim that
the mammal-reptile transition is thereby established is another
matter. Creatures have existed with a skull bone structure
intermediate between that of reptiles and mammals, and so THE
TRANSITION WITH RESPECT TO THIS FEATURE IS POSSIBLE. On the other
hand, there are many important features by which mammals differ from
reptiles besides the jaw and ear bones, including the all-important
reproductive systems. As we saw in other examples, convergence in
skeletal features between two groups does not necessarily signal an
evolutionary transition." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p78)
81
chaeopteryx specimens "provide clues as to how birds evolved," and
because''They are documents without which the idea of evolution would
not be as powerful."
"IN ARCHAEOPTERYX WE THEREFORE HAVE A POSSIBLE BIRD ANCESTOR
rather than a certain one. As in the cases of mammals, there is
plenty of difficulty in imagining how any single ancestor could have
produced descendants as varied as the penguin, the hummingbird, and
the ostrich, through viable intermediate stages. The absence of
fossil evidence for the transitions is more easily excused, however,
because birds pursue a way of life that ensures that their bodies
will rarely be fossilized. Archaeopteryx is on the whole a point for
the Darwinists, but how important is it? Persons who come to the
fossil evidence as convinced Darwinists will see a stunning
confirmation, but skeptics will see only a lonely exception to a
consistent pattern of fossil disconfirmation. If we are testing
Darwinism rather than merely looking for a confirming example or two,
then A SINGLE GOOD CANDIDATE FOR ANCESTOR STATUS IS NOT
ENOUGH to save a theory that posits a worldwide history of continual
evolutionary transformation." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p81.
My emphasis)
"If one does not stop with the reptile-mammal transition but
continues the attempt to provide a coherent account of macroevolution
into the mammal class itself, it becomes immediately apparent that
there is a great deal more to explain than the differences in jaw and
ear bone structure between reptiles and mammals. The mammal class
includes such diverse groups as whales, porpoises, seals, polar
bears, bats, cattle, monkeys, cats, pigs, and opossums. If mammals
are a monophyletic group, then the Darwinian model requires that
every one of the groups have descended from a single unidentified
small land mammal. HUGE NUMBERS OF INTERMEDIATE SPECIES IN THE
DIRECT LINE OF TRANSITION WOULD HAVE HAD TO EXIST, but the fossil
record fails to record them." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993,
pp79-80. My emphasis)
"Archaeopteryx is an impressive mosaic. The question is whether it
is proof of a reptile (dinosaur) to bird transition, or whether it is
just one of those odd variants, like the contemporary duck-billed
platypus, that have features resembling those of another class but
are not transitional intermediates in the Darwinian sense. Until
very recently, the trend among paleontologists was to regard
Archaeopteryx as an evolutionary dead end rather than as the direct
ancestor of modern birds. The next oldest bird fossils were
specialized aquatic divers that did not look like they could be its
direct descendants. The picture has changed somewhat following
discoveries of fossil birds, one in Spain and the other in China, in
rocks dated at 125 million and 135 million years. The new specimens
have reptilian skeletal features which QUALIFY THEM AS POSSIBLE
INTERMEDIATES BETWEEN ARCHAEOPTERYX AND CERTAIN MODERN
BIRDS. The evidence, however, is too fragmentary to justify any
definite conclusions" (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993, pp80-81. My
emphasis)
"...I am happy to assume arguendo that small apes (the
Australopithecines once existed which walked upright, or more nearly
upright than apes of today, and THAT THERE MAY ALSO HAVE BEEN AN
INTERMEDIATE SPECIES (Homo erectus that walked upright and had brain
size intermediate between that of modern men and apes. On that
assumption THERE ARE POSSIBLE TRANSITIONAL STEPS BETWEEN APES
AND HUMANS, but nothing like the smooth line of development that was
proclaimed by Dobzhansky and other neo-Darwinists. We have to
imagine what Steven Stanley calls "rapid branching," a euphemism for
mysterious leaps, which somehow produced the human mind and spirit
from animal materials." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993,
pp85-86. My emphasis)
"The purpose of this review has been to clarify what we would have to
find in the molecular evidence, or any other body of new evidence,
before we would be justified in concluding that Darwinism is probably
true. We would need to find evidence that THE COMMON ANCESTORS AND
TRANSITIONAL INTERMEDIATES REALLY EXISTED in the living world of the
past, and that natural selection in combination with random genetic
changes really has the kind of creative power claimed for it. It
will not be enough to find that organisms share a common biochemical
basis, or that their molecules as well as their visible features can
be classified in a pattern of groups within groups. The important
claim of Darwinism is not that relationships exist, but that those
relationships were produced by a naturalistic process in which parent
species were gradually transformed into quite different descendant
forms THROUGH LONG BRANCHES (OR EVEN THICK BUSHES) OF
TRANSITIONAL INTERMEDIATES, without intervention by any Creator or
other non-naturalistic mechanism." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p91.
My emphasis)
"Biochemists assume that the three cellular kingdoms evolved from a
single common ancestor, because the alternative of supposing an
independent origin of life two or more times presents still greater
difficulties. This common ancestor is merely HYPOTHETICAL, AS ARE
THE NUMEROUS TRANSITIONAL INTERMEDIATE FORMS THAT WOULD
HAVE TO CONNECT SUCH ENORMOUSLY DIFFERENT GROUPS TO THE
ANCESTOR. From a Darwinist viewpoint all these hypothetical
creatures are a logical necessity, but there is no empirical
confirmation that they existed." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p95. My
emphasis)
"The "weasel words" in the original exhibit had hinted broadly that
there were grounds for doubt about Darwinism, but had given no clear
indication of precisely what the grounds for doubt might be. As the
Museum's spokesman explained in an interview, the exhibits did not
refer to such problems as THE LACK OF TRANSITIONALS IN THE FOSSIL
RECORD, the sudden explosion of complex life forms at the beginning of
the Cambrian age, the difficulty of explaining the origin of the
genetic code, the limits to change shown by breeding experiments, the
"hopeful monster" controversy, the punctuated equilibrium controversy,
or the importance of catastrophic extinctions. From the point of view
of an informed critic, even the original exhibition was more a coverup
than a candid disclosure of Darwinism's difficulties." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p141)
"An explanation of the punctuated equilibrium controversy, for
example, is bound to give skeptics the impression that Darwinists are
making lame excuses for their INABILITY TO FIND SUPPORTING FOSSIL
EVIDENCE for their claims about macroevolution. No matter how
earnestly the experts insist that they are only arguing about the
tempo of gradualist evolution, and not about whether it ever
happened, a few bright teenagers are likely to think that PERHAPS THE
EVIDENCE IS MISSING BECAUSE THE STEP-BY-STEP TRANSITIONS
NEVER OCCURRED. To Darwinists, teaching about evolution does not
mean encouraging immature minds-or mature ones, for that matter-to
think about unacceptable possibilities." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition,
1993, pp141-142. My emphasis).
"Raup's essay on the fossil record issue in Godfrey's Scientists
Confront Creationism collection: is particularly interesting. In what
was supposed to be a polemic against creationism he included the
following paragraph:
`Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show A REASONABLY
SMOOTH CONTINUUM OF ANCESTOR-DESCENDANT PAIRS with A
SATISFACTORY NUMBER OF INTERMEDIATES BETWEEN MAJOR GROUPS.
Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the
fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious
jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time,
and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic
record and in part on the lack of study of that record. We are now
more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little
changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological
knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil
record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not
much different. We actually may have FEWER EXAMPLES OF SMOOTH
TRANSITIONS than we had in Darwin's time, because some of the old
examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail.
To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been
found, particularly among land vertebrates. But if Darwin were
writing today, he would still have to cite A DISTURBING LACK OF
MISSING LINKS OR TRANSITIONAL FORMS BETWEEN THE MAJOR
GROUPS OF ORGANISMS.' (Raup D., in Godfrey L. R., Ed., "Scientists
Confront Creationism", W. W. Norton: New York, 1983, p156). "
(Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove
Ill., Second Edition, 1993, pp186-187).
"The fossil record-characterized by sudden appearance and subsequent
stasis- is notoriously reluctant to yield examples of Darwinian
macroevolution. The therapsid reptiles and Archaeopteryx are RARE
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL ABSENCE OF PLAUSIBLE TRANSITIONAL
INTERMEDIATES BETWEEN MAJOR GROUPS, which is why it is important to
understand that even these Darwinist trophies are inconclusive as
evidence of macroevolution." (Johnson P.E., "The Religion of the
Blind Watchmaker", American Scientific Affiliation, "Perspectives on
Science and Christian Faith", vol. 45, March 1993, pp46-48. My
emphasis).
"A mysterious process that produces dozens of complex animal groups
directly from single-celled predecessors, with only some words like
"fast-transition" in between, may be called "evolution"-but the term
is being used more in the sense of Grasse's heresy than of
Dobzhansky's Darwinian orthodoxy. Each of those Cambrian animals
contained a variety of immensely complicated organ systems. How can
such innovations appear except by the gradual accumulation of
micromutations, unless there was some supernatural intervention? It
is not only that the Darwinian theory requires a very gradual line of
descent from each Cambrian animal group back to its hypothetical
single-celled ancestor. Because Darwinian evolution is a
purposeless, chance-driven process, which would not proceed directly
from a starting point to a destination, THERE SHOULD ALSO BE THICK
BUSHES OF SIDE BRANCHES IN EACH LINE. As Darwin himself put it, if
Darwinism is true the Precambrian world must have "swarmed with
living creatures" many of which were ancestral to the Cambrian
animals. If he really rejects the artifact theory of the Precambrian
fossil record, Gould also rejects the Darwinian theory of evolution."
(Johnson P.E., "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning", in Buell J. & Hearn
V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation for
Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, pp13-14)
"If one assumes that a process of gradual, blind watchmaker evolution
produced the Cambrian phyla, then ONE HAS TO ASSUME ALSO THAT A
UNIVERSE OF TRANSITIONAL SPECIES THAT ONCE LIVED ON THE EARTH
HAS VANISHED mysteriously from the fossil record." (Johnson P.E.,
"Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill.,
1995, p87-88. My emphasis)
In none of the above quotations by "Phillip Johnson" does he say that
"there are no transitional forms." I therefore challenge Glenn to
cite even *one* instance where "Phillip Johnson" has said "there are
no transitional forms".
GMThere are.
That "There are" fossils which are "transitional" in form between
"higher categories" must be denied by YECs like "Gish", but it is not
necessarily disputed by OEC/PCs like "Johnson". What is disputed by
the latter is whether there are enough of these "transitional"
fossils to support the Neo-Darwinian theory of gradual step-by-step
macroevolution by mutation and cumulative natural selection, which
Dawkins has convincingly argued is the only way to account non-
supernaturalistically for "life's complex design":
"Cumulative selection, by slow and gradual degrees, is the
explanation, the only workable explanation that has ever been
proposed, for the existence of life's complex design. The whole book
has been dominated by the idea of chance, by the astronomically long
odds against the spontaneous arising of order, complexity and
apparent design. We have sought a way of taming chance, of drawing
its fangs...To 'tame' chance means to break down the very improbable
into less improbable small components arranged in series. No matter
how improbable it is that an X could have arisen from a Y in a single
step, it is always possible to conceive of a series of
INFINITESIMALLY GRADED INTERMEDIATES BETWEEN THEM. However
improbable a large-scale change may be, smaller changes are less
improbable. And provided we postulate A SUFFICIENTLY LARGE SERIES OF
SUFFICIENTLY FINELY GRADED INTERMEDIATES, we shall be able to derive
anything from anything else, without invoking astronomical
improbabilities." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin:
London, 1991, p317-318. My emphasis).
GM>Even if one does what you are suggesting and say that this series
>is a grab bag, you cannot deny the fact that these are a series that
>appear transitional. They simply choose not to acknowledge them.
Again, this "they" is necessarily true of YECs such as "Gish". It is
*not* necessarily true of OEC/PCs like "Phillip Johnson".
The latter does not necessarily "deny" the fact that there can be "a
series that appear transitional." What Johnson does "deny" is that
there are enough "series that appear transitional" to support
Neo-Darwinism.
GM>To tell a student that there are no transitional forms without
>warning him of sequences like these is to leave him ill-prepared when
>he goes to college and learns of such things.
Agreed. This is a danger of "a student" who comes from a YEC home
who is taught "there are no transitional forms", and later on
discovers that there may be some (although not enough for
Neo-Darwinist macroevolution).
GM>And the anti-evolutionists never write about such sequences in
>enough detail to let us know what the evolutionist is saying.
Agreed. In the past "anti-evolutionists" may not have got down to the
"detail" in order to "know what the evolutionist is saying." But as
Ratzsch points out this is beginning to change:
"So in recent years, at least to some degree, the [creationist]
movement has begun to turn a corner away from some aspects of its
past. The move is not necessarily away from a picture something
roughly like that depicted in Genesis Flood, but away from easy,
sometimes uncritical defenses of that picture, and away from easy,
sometimes inaccurate criticisms of evolutionary theory....there is
barely beginning to emerge a new generation of creationists with
legitimate and relevant credentials who are undertaking to actually
do some of the painstaking, detailed drudgery that underlies any
genuinely live scientific program. This emergence has begun to
produce a separation in the creationist movement-an upper and lower
tier, so to speak. I think that what ultimately separates the two
tiers is different levels of respect for accuracy and completeness of
detail, and different levels of awareness that a theory's looking
good in vague and general form is an enormously unreliable predictor
of whether in the long run the theory will be disemboweled by
recalcitrant technical details." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of
Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution
Debate", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Ill., 1996, pp81-82)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------