<<The argument seems to have changed somewhat from that involved
with tool making. Tool making would have to be considered an innovation,
so to be consistent with the arguments in this post it seems to me that
the key is not how long tool making was in a static condition but rather
how rapidly tool making appeared. Anyone know what the time-frame was?>>
It's all part of one argument. We are talking about physical evidence that was
left for us to interpret. Shaman art is one type of evidence--and the most
powerful. There is nothing remotely like it anywhere before 34,000 years or so
ago, and its appearance is sudden and pervasive. It is evidence of a spiritual
capacity heretofore unknown. We have to deal with that.
As far as tools, we have another clear record, recently confirmed by the
discovery that pushes the Oldowan industry back another 250,000 years. You
have primitive toolmaking that remains static for over ONE MILLION YEARS. The
creatures using them did not advance it an evoutionary whit.
But then what happens? When fully modern man comes on the scene, we have a
number of concurrent, explosive, quantum leap developments. There is the
physiological, of course--reorganizaed skull shape, expanded frontal section
of the brain, less ponderous jaw, etc.--things that are not predictable from
what came before. These changes coincide with changes in the vocal tract
making articulate language physcially possible for the first time. And the
tools? It is also an astounding advance. Strangled blades for hafting into
knife handles, precise burins (these are used for engraving), leaf-shaped
points for streamlined projectiles, punch and pressure flaking techniques, the
discovery and use of grinding to utilze mortars and stone oil lamps, shaving
(which allowed mastery over vone, ivory, antler and wood), steaming and
wrenching processes for straightening bone for spear shafts, weaving
techniques for ropes and nets and snares...and the list GOES ON.
This is not some gradual result of evolution. It is an unanticipated quantum
leap. Coincidence? Or is it just possible that this is evidence of a quantum
leap in the creature producing it?
<<How fast is fast? If we concede that the appearance of Shaman art occurred
in an instant on an evolutionary time scale, how long did it take on a special
creationary time scale?>>
I would say just as fast. I mean, this is beyond FAST, this is
incomprehensible from an evolutionary point of view. That's why all the
experts call this development an ENIGMA. They can't explain it. Naturalism
never will.
<< What exactly is meant by "evolutionary time scale". I can see two
possibilities: (1) a time scale associated with the actual historical
record of evolution (fact of evolution), i.e. associated with observations
based on the fossil record etc. (2) a time scale associated with a particular
theory of evolution , i.e. orthodox neo-darwinistic gradualism. In other
words, in this interpretation we say things like "wow I don't think this
could have happened according to Darwinistic mechanisms because
these take a long time"
I suspect that (1) is being used in the Pfeiffer quote above, but that
Jim may be basing his argument for special creation on (2). >>
Hmm, I don't really see a major distinction here (or, as we barristers might
say, "It's a distinction without a difference.") The argument is based upon
the physical evidence (as agreed to everyone) laid across the template
necessarily associated with Darwinian gradualism. The evidence does not fit,
especially when one considers the time element. It does fit, however, with a
theory of special creation.
Jim