I guess the best thing I can do for you, Myschae, at this point, will be to try to type in some chapters from a "textbook" that examines the data and the arguments so that the "credentialed experts," rather than some poor shlemiel who only has an "opinion" can speak to the issues.

In essence, what you have here is not much different than, say, opposing forensic scientists testifying in a court of law, who have examined and interpreted the SAME facts and arrived at "opposing" opinions as to what the FACTS tell them. They then take their positions as being "definitive," but it is "up to the jury of laymen" to listen to the arguments and to decide for themselves which interpretation is "more likely" or "more consistant" with the entire case and the "argument" of the "Pro" or "Con" side. IF ONLY ONE SIDE gets to present it's arguments (i.e., in peer reviewed journals), is "justice" served? IF THE JURY doesn't get to hear the "opposing experts" evaluations of the very same data, isn't that "brainwashing" and not "education?"

Myschae - this is the same "argument" that 2long has used over the years of our "on again, off again" discussion of evolution/creation. The fact is that it is almost impossible to get a "contrary" article published in "those journals" because they automatically reject for publication any article that does not support evolution. Fortunately, some occasionally "slip through" and there are other places to be published. It really is NOT "where" something gets published, it is the scientific experiment and/or analysis that is important, because the nature of the "scientific method" is the reproducability and verifiability of the data/hypothesis/theory, etc. that is fundamental to science regardless of where something is "published." A whole of lot "junk science" has been published in so called "peer reviewed" publications. That publishing does not, itself, confer "rightness" to what is published. More often than not, what it is dependent upon is a philosophy, a belief, rather than the "rightness" of the analysis. In otherwords, if it supports and evolutionary bias and presupposition, it gets published regardless, but if it "questions" evolution, let alone argues for creation, it is rejected out of hand for publication.

That "scientists" cannot be "men of God" is simply wrong. Science and faith are two separate issues. But faith DOES often "bias" the scientist and causes them to bring presuppositions to the table when they attempt to interpret the FACTS that are observed in nature. I don't much care what anyone thinks about "10,000 years" and that's a "red herring" that evolutionists drag out because it's "unreasonable." Well, if "reasonableness" is the "Test," then I'd simply suggest that MOST of the evolutionists "thoughts" are unreasonable as well. The "reason" for that is that evolutionists BEGIN with a NECESSITY for "millions and millions of years" in order for ANY possibility of evolution to occur.

Myschae, there are several books that I have, but if you want to narrow it down to one that might be "very good" at presenting the scientific, rather than religious, treatment of the subject, that book would be Scientific Creationism by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D

Mys - be aware that Morris' book has next to no credence except amongst biblical literalists. By all means have a look at it, but Morris was a hydrologist whose claim to fame was devotion to "proving" a global flood. His first book, "The Genesis Flood", appears to be required reading for young earth creationists. He's the darling of the YECers.

A good resource for much in this broad topic is talkorigins.org The creationists version is trueorigins.org

As far as I am aware, Mortarman, indicating that the NEA is educating our children is about like saying the AFL-CIO manufactures our cars. It's an interesting assertion, but misses a number of the other people and organizations who are responsible for our educational system, up to and including our current (no child left behind) President who is, I believe, a born-again Christian.

More quote mining revealed.

FH offered -

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred.’ (David B. Kitts, “Search for the Holy Transformation,’ Paleobiology (Vol. 5: Summer 1979), p.353)

The rest of the story:

First, the quote usually presented by creationists is longer:


"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)

This is a review article on the book quoted in the title. The author of the review article (Kitts) says in the first paragraph:

"This book by the distinguished French biologist is an English translation of a French edition published in 1973 under the title "L'Evolution du Vivant." In the preface to his book Grassé prepares us for what is to follow when he says, 'Many of the ideas expressed in this book will seem disconcerting to the English or American reader schooled in orthodox Darwinism. With this caveat, let him overcome initial reluctance to read the book. He will, I maintain, discover the unavowed weaknesses of a doctrine that falls far short of universal explanation.' I wish that I could report that Darwinians will find new challenges to their "doctrine" in the pages of this book, but I regret to say that they will not. All of Grassé's arguments have been marshaled against Darwinian theory before, and in the opinion of most Darwinians, have been adequately countered. If there is anything novel in this attack it is the contention that recent developments in molecular genetics have some special bearing on traditional objections to Darwinian theory." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353)

Now that we know where Kitts is coming from in this article, let's dissect the original quote posted by the quote-miner presented above. Any time an ellipsis ("...") is seen in these mined quotes, one must take instant caution because it usually means they've cut out some supportive discussion of evolution. This is the case in this quote as well.

" Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred.

The deleted part in the elipsis:

Grassé, on the other hand, holds just the view that has so often been erroneously attributed to Darwinian paleontologists. For him the fossil record reveals not only the course of evolution but its "mechanism" as well. The history of life is an untheory-laden chronicle which any biologist must take as raw data. Evolution, on this view, is a virtually self-evident fact which remains only to be adequately explained. Grassé faults the Darwinians for failure to recognize the pristine character of paleontological evidence. He says (p. 7), 'Paleontologists, who cannot have recourse to experiments when deciding that a given character is genetically valuable, thus expresses [sic] a very hypothetical opinion. Assuming that the Darwinian hypothesis is correct, they interpret fossil data according to it; it is only logical that they should confirm it: the premises imply the conclusion. The error in method is obvious". If a paleontologist claims to have supported the fundamental tenets of Darwinian theory in citing the fossil record, then he has indeed committed a methodological error. But every interpretation of the fossil record must proceed on the acceptance of some theory. Grassé never gives us any reason to think that he recognizes this fact, and we are, therefore, left to ferret out those surreptitious assumptions which, we must suppose, underlie his account of the history of organisms.

Grassé's confidence in the fossil record is excessive but he is not alone in supposing that it has something to tell us about the mechanism of evolution. Paleontologists and evolutionists have frequently turned to fossils for crucial tests of some theory, or even simply of some fact, only to come away with the realization that the answers lie more in the theory that they have presupposed in their interpretation of the fossil record than in the record itself and that, indeed, there isn't even any record at all until we somehow make one out of extant rocks and objects that seem to be the broken remains of plants and animals. The current debate over punctuated equilibria and gradualism as the principle modes of evolution is but the latest illustration of how difficult it is to extract theoretically significant information from fossils. When we are tempted to say that evolution or some aspect of it is an "obvious fact", it is well to turn once again to Darwin himself who devoted a large book to an argument more directed at the elusive conclusion that evolution had occurred than explaining something that might be established independent of that argument.

Darwinian paleontologists cannot take much comfort from the fact that the fossil record does not compel them to reject their theory because it does not compel them to accept it either.

Re-joining the mined quote:

The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even a historical theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)

Note that the original quote-miner left out a whole bunch of material, completely removing the context above, and then pasting the two sides together as one argument. Also note that they left out the prefix "a" in "ahistorical" in their quote to be "historical" which completely changes the meaning of the quote even in the mined form.

Kitts is showing that the fossil record, taken alone without a theory to test it against, is inadequate to support Darwinism, which is exactly what Gould argues in his punctuated equilibrium theory, and evolutionists know quite well. Kitts goes on for quite a while longer explaining Grassé's conception that natural selection is not enough to explain the fossil record in opposition to Darwinian theory. However, this last bit, which is not taken out of context of the above paragraphs, will show you what Kitt's final point was:

"If a theory leads us to conclude that events of a certain kind are to be expected, then we may suppose that they have occurred even though direct historical evidence for their occurrence is unconvincing. The Darwinians will, quite rightly, never be led by the fossil record to abandon their theory nor even to suppose that it is in need of alteration or emendation. But if a well supported biological theory requires them to conclude that evolution is "guided" by some previously unrecognized factor, then they should be prepared to introduce that factor into their interpretation of the fossil record. Grassé finds in contemporary molecular genetics at least the hope that the additional directing factor may be found." Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 354)

So far, no well-supported biological theory refuting the current progression of the fossil record has been found, yet Darwinists do indeed these days use biological data to help interpret the fossil record, just as Kitts noted.

Genetics since the 1970's has progressed as a science well beyond what even Kitts or Grassé might have envisioned, and has been adding support to the theory of evolution rather than to any other mechanism that might have been hoped for by Grassé before the 1970's. Genetics and genetic evidence in itself is the single most compelling evidence for evolution to date. The added value of "live data" in genetics and evo-devo to paleobiology will never be overestimated, as Gould is seen to envision in my review of a 1980 Gould "quote nugget" elsewhere in this larger quotemining document.

WAT (research by Deanne (Lilith) Taylor)

Genetics since the 1970's has progressed as a science well beyond what even Kitts or Grassé might have envisioned, and has been adding support to the theory of evolution rather than to any other mechanism that might have been hoped for by Grassé before the 1970's. [color:"blue"]Genetics and genetic evidence in itself is the single most compelling evidence for evolution to date.[/color] The added value of "live data" in genetics and evo-devo to paleobiology will never be overestimated, as Gould is seen to envision in my review of a 1980 Gould "quote nugget" elsewhere in this larger quotemining document.

The “point being made” by the book I cited is that evolutionists themselves do NOT believe that the fossil record supports evolution.

For the last time, evolution is not a faith or belief. It is the current best result of the scientific process applied to naturally occuring phenomena. Period. If that shatters or contradicts some other faith or belief, oh well. That wasn't the "target" - that's just the way it turns out.

For the last time, evolution is not a faith or belief. It is the current best result of the scientific process applied to naturally occuring phenomena.

FH, what are your scientific or other credentials in this discussion? I think I missed that somewhere along the way. Thanks!

Do you think you're biased?

No, because the jury isn't deciding on the standards of forensic science. They are listening to opinions by experts in the respective fields in order to decide whether or not a crime (a completely separate matter) has been committed. We don't convene a jury of lay people to determine the proper procedures for genetic extraction without contamination. We don't just hand the raw data to the jury to figure out - we hire people who interpret those data and explain the results to the lay people because we recognize that most people wouldn't have the foggiest idea what the values in the raw data really mean.

I think that what should be taught in public schools should follow the standards set forth by the communities which are responsible for creating and maintaining such standards.

""When you see a building, do you have "faith" that it did NOT assemble itself, but that it was assembled "on purpose?"'

Ok, what if I said "I KNOW FOR A FACT that this building did not assemble itself"

Same as FAITH??

I think not.

Maybe I ask questions that are too simple. Just a lowly MBA here.

Over the course of time, science, albeit slowly, has moved away from one theorey to another. The reason it moves slowly is that most wait until such time as the evidence supporting one theorey is more abudant that the evidence supporting another.

So I guess what that leads up to is what exactly are you saying.

Is it, that all of the evidence supporting evolution is bunk. Merely manufactured to support an erroneous hypothesis?

Are you saying that their is no evidence?

Are you saying that all of the evidence has been intrepretreted incorrectly?

Are you saying there is considerable evidence supporting evolution, however, there is considerably more evidence supporting creation that is being ignored.

Are you saying there is considerable evidence supporting evolution, however, there still remains some evidence of creation that, while not a preponderance of the evidence, should be assumed correct.

Are you saying there is considerable evidence supporting evolution, however, there still remains some evidence of creation that should be considered.

Are you saying that because the evidence supporting evolution is not bullet proof, one should assume it is an incorrect theorey.

Perhaps if you clarify, in very simple terms, you get the perspective your are seeking.

I hope that answers your question. If not ask again, another question, or rephrase as you may see fit.

The "question" that one must answer for themselves, at some point, is, "Is the preponderance of evidence" better predicted by and Evolution Model or a Creation Model?

People all the time examine the same facts and come to differing conclusions. But the "basis" begins with faith, either in a Creator or not in a Creator but only in "natural processes of nature."

Precisely. But that still doesn't change the fact that TWO equally scientifically qualified experts can't disagree on the INTERPRETATION of the data, unless it is very definitive and NOT open to interpretation (i.e. dead versus alive, for a simplistic example, or unless one is a fervent existentialist).

Once they have disagreed, however, it is then up to the "hearers" to decide who to "believe" and who's interpretation "best fits the facts" and the "model" of what happened. Sometimes people DO "get it wrong." I think that was the case, for example in the OJ case. But that's a whole different topic that we'll not get into now.

The key question will always be WHO gets to decide the standards to be imposed upon others, and WHY do they get to do so?

FH,

If evolution was ever proven to your satisfaction to be the "truth", would it change the love you have for God, for the Bible, or for Jesus?

Would your "truth" still be that God created the heavens and earth?

Or would you have to re-examine your belief system again?

I'm curious because different folks have said that it matters not to them, this debate over evolution vs creation because God is very real to them regardless and I am one of those.

I am not being sarcastic with this question, and I know your love for God and Christianity is very strong but is it shakable based on "proving" one or the other?

I am not scientific or even that interested in either one, but have read many, many books on spirituality and religion, and the only thing I have found for certain is that there is no "truth", only our own truths.

Anyway, this thread has not disentregated into ugliness and that is a beautiful thing...maybe we are all becoming more evolved through our various sharing, eh?

Oh! Did you see what I said about hoping to narrow my focus to data on the dating of the Earth and the discrepancy in the numbers? I haven't been to school yet but I was wondering if that's what is in that book you recommended?