I am not disputing the evidence that seem to suggest trends in the fossil
record. But calling them transitional forms already assumes what you are
trying to prove. OEC seems to be eqaully able to account for them - God
recycles fundamental structures, and therefore, we would expect to see
similarities and variations in the fossil record, that could lead one to
conclude that they are transitionals, based on their theory. I am not
disputing the argument that the evidence is quite consistent with evolution,
because I think it is, but I am also exploring the argument that the
evidence is just as consistent with OEC.
From: Glenn Morton [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 10:21 PM
To: Adrian Teo; email@example.com
Subject: Re: Old-Earth Creationism
I agree with much of what Howard has said.
At 11:03 AM 2/14/02 -0800, Adrian Teo wrote:
With all the hammering that YEC is getting in this forum, it appears that
the only other alternative is evolution. However, it seems to me that
Old-earth creationism (OEC) is another viable alternative that seem to be as
consistent with the evidence as evolution is.
Assuming that God created all life forms in their own "kinds" (however one
chooses to define what this means, but it almost certainly must be above the
level of the species), either simultaneously, or at different times, it
seems to me that this perspective is able to account for all the scientific
evidence that evolution can.
The problem is that contrary to the ostrich-like claims of many
anti-evolutionists, there are indeed numerous transitional forms in the
fossil record. I would suggest looking at
We start with Panderichthids who only have gills, and fins, go through
animals which have both gills and lungs and legs which can't support their
body and then into animals with gills, lungs and legs capable of locomotion
and then into animals who lost the gills.
I would also point you to
<http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/cambevol.htm> for a discussion of
phylum level evolution. You can also get the article. Morton, G. R. (2001)
Transitional Forms and The Evolution of Phyla. Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith, 53(2001):1:42-51
This latter article discusses the cambrian explosion and documents
transitional forms there.
This presents a real problem to the OEC because there is no clear cut place
where one can draw a line and say "God created this one and not that one."
Microevolution is accepted, and accounts for a
wide array of observations. Extinction is also allowed in this view, which
explains why we don't see many creatures that we find in the fossil record.
What we find in common across different species (physical structures,
genetic sequences, etc.) could be accounted for by the fact that God
recycles basic building blocks in different types of creatures. I'm
wondering if people can think of data that this view is unable to account
for, because, on the surface, it seems to me like this may be a viable
alternative for Christians to take.
Transitional forms. Even the young-earther Berlinski on the 1997 PBS debate
was forced to admit that there were reptile to mammal transitional forms.
And the Cambrian is not the place where phyla first formed nor did life
first appear on earth in the Cambrian. Neither did multi-cellular life first
appear in the Cambrian. Everything suggested by OEC's about where and when
God specially created seems to be wrong.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 12:37:39 EST