I apologize for this. Obviously I didn't communicate what I wanted to. I
think you got caught by a failed attempt on my part to use the 'reductio ad
absurdam' argument. I was trying to point out that 1. according to YECs
there is no alternative. 2. given that, if evolutionists were rejecting
evolution then they must be accepting creation! (given #1). Thus we can
look around, at polls, at textbooks etc and observe that there is not an
increase in professors professing creationism, therefore #2 isn't happening.
Oh well, sometimes an argument falls flat on its face.
>If by creation you mean something more metaphysical and slippery
>than seven days, sun and moon made same day, etc. than I'll give
>you a break.
>
>>If they aren't, what are they accepting?
>If myself is any guide, "uncertainty" would be the answer. Two others
>suggest
>themselves. "Panspermia" is one. More fundamentally, classical philosophy
>seems to hold room for an argument for "devolution," i.e. descent from an
>ecological golden age. Not my choice, but no less scientific than Genesis.
I couldn't argue with you here. You are correct.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm