Re: Yet more denigrating of Apologists (was Why?)

Ron Chitwood (
Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:07:56 -0500

GM>>>Not even the fact that we are about 98% genetically identical to a

So what? The fact is indisputable, but your spin on its answer certainly

Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood

> From: Glenn Morton <>
> To: J.D. Guzman <>; Evolution Reflector
> Subject: Re: Yet more denigrating of Apologists (was Why?)
> Date: Thursday, April 23, 1998 7:44 PM
> At 02:00 AM 4/24/98 -0500, J.D. Guzman wrote:
> >Well although I haven't been active in this discussion I am going to
jump in
> >here. Glenn I would be delighted if creatioism were taught in schools.
> >think it would be wonderful to allow students to decide for themselves
> >theory they would like to accept.
> Wow, my note to Ron wasn't read. :-( I said that it was ok by me to
> creationism in schools so long as BOTH sets of evidences are taught.
> >
> >As to your question, I would allow evidence for and against creationism
> >be presented, only if the same were applied to evolution. As much as
> >would like to think that the theory of evolution is fact and proven,
that is
> >not the case. There is evidence that goes directly against the theory,
> >none of this is even mentioned in the schools.
> >
> Absolutely. Such a place like this list would provide lots of
> for the children.
> >Behe's book is an example of things that the theory of evolution has
> >to explain, and, that if they continue to be unexplained, present a
> >challange to the theory. However, Behe's book is only one example of an
> >area that evolution hasn't been able to address properly. There is also
> >fact that evolution of the type that would give rise to the diverse
> >of species that we have hasn't been observed. Furthermore, there
> >been any experiment done that would even merrit a conclusion that we all
> >come from a common ancestor.
> Not even the fact that we are about 98% genetically identical to a chimp?
> >
> >Another thing is abiogenesis. It is a known fact that no one has been
> >to show that the building blocks of life could have formed randomly.
> >expiriments that have been done have all been in labratory, and almost
> >aspect of the expiriment is controled. Such expiriments prove nothing,
> >after all, the conditions billions of years ago were far from labratory
> >conditions.
> Actually this may not be true. see Gerald Joyce, Directed Evolution,
> Scientific American Dec. 1993. Long functional molecules are found by
> randomly searching all the time. In fact, industries are now using random

> mutation and selection to find new drugs. If it didn't work, industry
> wouldn't do it.
> >
> >So as you can see, although evolution has done a great deal in allowing
> >to understand how change occurs in animal species at the
> >scale, it has done nothing at the macroevolutionary scale.
> >
> >So fine present the evidence for and against creationism, but do the
> >for evolution.
> Only 8 mutations are enough to make radical changes in morphology between

> two species of monkeyflower one which appears designed to attrat
> hummingbirds and the other designed to attract bumblebees. Modern data
> that much less mutation is required for major structural changes than you

> would think.
> glenn
> Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
> and
> Foundation, Fall and Flood