Re: Reject evolution, accept creation?

Glenn R. Morton (
Mon, 08 Jun 1998 18:55:59 -0500

At 11:59 AM 6/8/98 -0400, Brendan Frost wrote:
>>The only alternative to an evolutionary origin for the universe and its
>>life is that of creation.
>I disagree totally, although the "origin of the universe" is a pretty broad
>statement. The Big Bang (which many say is bunk anyway)--evolution
>or creation? Does it matter?
>>If more and more people are rejecting evolution it would follow that they
>>are accepting creation.
>Can't let that stand, grmorton. please accept it as a tribute to the
>quality of your posts that I nitpick on this one point. If I see problems
>evolution as a theory, does that mean I'm going to turn to the
>book of Genesis for answers? As my kids say, "Not!"

I apologize for this. Obviously I didn't communicate what I wanted to. I
think you got caught by a failed attempt on my part to use the 'reductio ad
absurdam' argument. I was trying to point out that 1. according to YECs
there is no alternative. 2. given that, if evolutionists were rejecting
evolution then they must be accepting creation! (given #1). Thus we can
look around, at polls, at textbooks etc and observe that there is not an
increase in professors professing creationism, therefore #2 isn't happening.

Oh well, sometimes an argument falls flat on its face.

>If by creation you mean something more metaphysical and slippery
>than seven days, sun and moon made same day, etc. than I'll give
>you a break.
>>If they aren't, what are they accepting?
>If myself is any guide, "uncertainty" would be the answer. Two others
>themselves. "Panspermia" is one. More fundamentally, classical philosophy
>seems to hold room for an argument for "devolution," i.e. descent from an
>ecological golden age. Not my choice, but no less scientific than Genesis.

I couldn't argue with you here. You are correct.


Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information