Hmm. Seems to me I read somewhere of someone who was trained in Theology
that had the gall to assume, against the experts of the time, that chance
rather than God created. Perhaps you are right.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Glenn R. Morton <grmorton@waymark.net>
> To: Ron Chitwood <chitw@flash.net>; EVOLUTION@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Glenn wrote:
> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 8:23 PM
>
> At 10:01 AM 5/26/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote of Weidenreich's
oppostition
> to Piltdown:
> >
> >You are very well-read. I did not know that and I have read alot of
> >literature on this. However, on any find there is usually opposition
> >literature but that doesn't take the headlines. I think of Charles
Oxnard
> >and his opposition to believing 'Lucy" was anything other than just an
> >extinct chimpanzee.
> >
> Thank you for the kind words. If one is to attempt a solution for the
> science/scriptural issues, one must be willing to read in a lot of fields
> and NOT dispute the experts in the various fields. I can't see how a
> layman can come in and tell the experts that they are wrong when the
expert
> has more info than the layman. One of the problems with the way
Christians
> have dealt with Science is that they tell the experts that they are
wrong,
> wrong, wrong, in spite of the fact that the Christian may have only read
> one or two books on a given topic. No wonder we are viewed poorly by
> scientists. It is like me telling a brain surgeon that he shouldn't cut
in
> a particular way!
>
> I would like to correct one thing. Oxnard didn't think australopithecus
> was a chimpanzee. He beleived it was something unique, different from a
> chimp and different from human. He says,
>
> "New views of some of these morphologies may mean that we now have to
> envisage a range of functions for the fossils quite different from those
> seen in any present-day form, either human, ape or even monkey. This
also
> then allows us to include in our investigations all those pieces of
> information which were ignored in prior attempts to make these fossils
fit
> the conventional picture (or if they were not ignored, they were provided
> with curious ad hoc arguments to suggest why they existed." ~ C. E.
Oxnard,
> "Human Fossils: The New Revolution," The Great Ideas Today, 1977,
(Chicago:
> Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1977), p. 97.
>
> It is best to try to correctly state someone's arguments.
> glenn
>
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> & lots of creation/evolution information
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm