No. What always gets me is that we Christians pick half of the data then
misuse it. Basilosaurus does have small hind legs. That WAS one of the
predictions of Darwin's theory. It is obvious what Darwin is talking about
when he wrote:
"All analogical resemblances, as
of a whale to a fish, may indeed be said to be cases of convergence;
but this term has never been applied to superficial and adaptive
resemblances. It would, however be extremely rash to attribute to
convergence close similarity of character in many points of
structure amongst the modified descendants of widely distinct
beings." Descent of Man.
I wrote:
><<No where does the Bible say animals will reproduce after their kind. It
>says God created animals after their kind. There is a big difference
> between the two.>>
>
>You bring up a good point (Yes, this is JB talking!). I haven't visited this
>issue in quite awhile, as you have, so I'd like to hear what you think of the
>following:
>
>Even though the text doesn't indicate fixity explicitly,
More agreement.
> the question is
>whether it is implied. Two items strike me on this point:
>
>1."After their kind" does at least indicate a separatism among species at the
>point of creation, and from God's hand [no means are discussed, so it is an
>open question at this point]. One could easily infer that from the point of
>creation, a "kind" is distinct, designed...perhaps even fixed. While one is
>not compelled in this direction, there is certainly nothing in the text
>pointing toward the opposite view.
>
A separatism among species at creation in no way implies what would happen in
the future to these organisms anymore than the picking up of separate food
stuffs at the store indicates that each ingredient will be eaten by itself
(flour-yum yum; raw egg-yum yum; stick of butter-yum yum).
I could easier accept what we Christians say about Genesis if it were merely
that animals were created separately. But we add to the Bible and say that
they must remain static. These are two entirely different concepts-original
creation form and subsequent events.
Young earth creationists talk about evolution within the baramin, but then
define the baramin so restrictively that no change is allowed. But once
again, God and the Bible do not define whether different baramins consists of
reptiles vs. mammals vs. birds vs molluscs or whether baramins consists of
dogs vs cats vs. horses etc. Any definition put on this is an extra-Biblical
definition. We should be very careful about adding to the Bible things that it
does not say.
>2. In 1:22, God says "let the fowl multiply in the earth." Fowl were created
>according to a "kind"(v. 21), and now they are told to multiply AS FOWL. This
>indicates a fixity as fowl fill the earth.Their example is evidence of fixity
>elsewhere in creation.
>
What version are you using? I don't find this statement "multiply AS FOWL" in
any version I checked.
NIV says
"Let the birds increase on earth"
Revised Standard says the same.
King Jimmie says,
"Let fowl multiply in the earth"
Taken literally the fowl are not multiplying IN the earth they are doing their
thing ABOVE the earth. Darn disobedient birds. :-)
If the preacher at your wedding had been crass enough to have said, "Let Jim
and ___(enter your wife's name)___ multiply in the earth" Would you have
thought that this meant that you and your wife were to turn out little clones
of yourselves? Of course not. Why do we think that it means birds must turn
out clones of themselves?
The point is nowhere can I find a statement requiring fixity of species. And
contrary to the title of my friend, Ray Bohlin's book, nowhere do I find the
Bible telling us the Limits to Biological Change."
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm