>Glenn wrote:
>
><<Besides, this talk of a party sounds so conspiratorial. Is this the
>evolutionist party like the communist party?>>
>
>There similarities, sure. The majority of evolutionists are atheistic, some
>militantly so (e.g. Dawkins, Dennett who have become the de facto leadership
>for the science proletariat.) Nor does the Party tolerate dissent. When
>Professors like Kenyon, and writers like Mims, dare to question the Party
>line, they are shipped to the academic equivalent of Siberia. Informers lurk
>around every school board. If the subject of "fair treatement" comes up, they
>are reported to the KGB, er, I mean the ACLU.
>
I might say that is the treatment I received at the hands of the YECs when I
dissented from their party line. A journal that had published lots of my
articles when I was a YEC now will not touch them. John Woodmorappe calls me
lots of names. Henry Morris has condemned me in the same sentence with Davis
Young. Robert Brown's review of my book made it sound as if I had never been a
YEC. I think this party line business is a two way street.
>So, yes, one can see the parallels. Human nature is pretty consistent when
> it comes to orthodoxies.
We can agree on that. The anti-evolution crowd has their orthodoxies also.
Look what two of the High Priests of anti-evolutionism says about theistic
evolutionists.
"The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable
with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheisitic.
To accept the answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept
the thinking that generated those answers. That is why I think the
appropriate term for the accomodationist position is not 'theistic
evolution,' but rather theistic naturalism. Under either name,
it is a disastrous error."~Phillip E. Johnson, "Shouting 'Heresy' in
the Temple of Darwin,"Christianity Today Oct. 24, 1994, p. 26
"Worse still, theistic evolutionists (those who believe in
both evolution and God) are actively helping to undermine the basis
of the Gospel. As the psalmist asks in Psalm 11:3 (NIV), 'When the
foundations are being destroyed what can the righteous do?' If the
basis of the Gospel is destroyed, the structure built on that
foundation (the Christian church) will largely collapse. If
Christians wish to preserve the structure of Christianity, they
must protect its foundation and therefore actively oppose
evolution."~Ken Ham, The Lie, (San Diego: Master Books, 1987), p.
76
Don't dare question or you are in trouble.
>JB, quoting Taylor<<"The real obstacles to such a move were the massive
>structural changes needed to make life on land worthwhile. To bein with,the
>fish would need legs simply in order to relieve the pressure of its body on
>the ground, which would compress the lungs." >>
>
>GM<< I can lay on my couch or the floor and breathe just fine. I think
> this
>guy is wrong. >>
>
>I didn't know you began life as an aquatic animal, Glenn. Your lungs,
> suited to sub-marine pressure and located ventrally, must have instantly
>evolved the capacity to withstand your lying face down on the floor. Of
>course, you also instantly evolved a ventral ribcage to protect your lungs
>while you do this.
Yes I did begin life as an aquatic mammal. I was enclosed in my mother's
amniotic sac which was filled with water. I had always supposed that you had
been born in this very mammalian way also, but now I am not so sure. :-) Are
you a reptile?
>
>You had to, because the fish backbone is basically a rod (called a notochord)
>surrounded by cartilage rings. (BTW, the remainder of the fish skeleton is
>also cartilaginous, which still leaves the us with the knotty problem of the
>evolution of bones). The lungs and swim bladder of the fish are under this
>backbone and its attendant "cage." So the lungs, swim bladder, heart and
>everything else are right on top of the soft underbelly.
>
>A fish coming onto the land would need support to keep pressure off his soft
>little belly as it flopped around. Of course, while it did so it wouldn't
>notice its gills collapsing. Nor would it care that its body was drying out
>rapidly, redcuing to zero the area of the respiratory surface and effectively
>stopping the diffusion of oxygen into the blood. Easy stuff, this, right?
>Evolution is so simple. All we have to do is imagine all these problems
> were really "selective advantages." Poof!
You forget that there are fish who can do what you say is impossible. In
recent years Florida was plagued (maybe still is) by an African import, the
walking catfish. I guess that fish, which is able to walk from pond to pond
has not heard that you say this is impossble. Some one should inform him of
this fact. You can't cause you are in California. If some one is listening
from Florida would you please tell those catfish to quit coming onto dry land.
Jim says it is impossible for them to do this.
>
>BTW, what happened to your gills, Glenn, during your transition from Homo
>Aquaticus to Texus Curmudgeonus?
>
:-)
[snip]
>He recognized that "evolutionists have been blinkered by a too narrowly
>materialist and reductionist approach to their problems." Boy, sounds just
>like Phil Johnson! Only Taylor was a staunch evolutionist.He was just one who
>was not a puppet of the Party. He recognized the pressure the Party puts on
>its members, and pleaded for a time when "scientists will feel free to look
>around for new interpretations in a much less inhibited manner, free from any
>fear of having their careers damaged by the awful charge of unorthodoxy."
Gee, this horrible party didn't crush Taylor for his dissent? I thought you
said dissenters 'are shipped to the academic equivalent of Siberia.' Taylor
got his book published. The party must be getting soft.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm