Re: Glenn wrote:

Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:37:23 -0500

At 02:24 PM 10/21/98 -0600, John W. Burgeson wrote:
>Glenn wrote:
>
>>Assuming (big if) that such a set of insertions actually moved
>> the chimp toward the human form and cognition,
>>what would people opposed to
>> evolution then say to maintain the anti-evolutionary position?
>
>Glenn -- I proposed exactly this scenario almost 10 years ago to both a
>strong atheist and some of my YEC friends.
>
>The YEC friends were curiously silent.

They have been here on this one also.
>
>My atheist colleague got so upset over the idea that all he would talk
>about was the ethics of such an experiment. To be fair, he had been
>conditioned by Holocaust experiences and the "sub human" concept. But we
>could never get a rational discussion going, even over e-mail!
>
>For my part, it would be a terrible piece of data to overcome for my YEC
>friends. I am not sure it does much to the PC or TE position though. For
>the "animal rights" people, it would be a strong argument point!
>(Save the baby mosquitoes!)

I agree that it wouldn't hurt TE, but PC would be hurt somewhat, at least
some versions of it. If man is a separate creation, then he wasn't
evolved. The only way I see for PC to be confirmed is if the experiment
could never be accomplished.

Concerning the animals, saying that you can't turn a chimp into a human
seems equivalent to me to those lingusists who want to save the minor
languages around the world from extinction by not allowing their children
to learn more widespread languages. To prevent some member of a small
tribe speaking a minor language from bettering themselves seems unethical.
Could the same be applied to a non-human species?

glenn

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm