RE: Old-Earth Creationism

From: Adrian Teo (
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 12:36:29 EST

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "Re: Genesis One that Fits, #3"

    Hello Glenn,
    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.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Glenn Morton []
    Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 10:21 PM
    To: Adrian Teo;
    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
    <> 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