Re: Fwd: [breakpoint] Ditching Darwin , 8/5/1999
Sun, 08 Aug 1999 18:13:02 +0000

At 05:57 AM 08/09/1999 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>For those who don't receive Charles Colson's Breakpoint, here is a recent
>review of Schwartz' un-Darwinian book, "Sudden Origins".
>It reminds me of what Ankerberg & Weldon wrote in Moreland's "The
>Creation Hypothesis":
>"Suppose for a moment that Darwin's theory of natural selection is a
>mistaken view about the origin and development of life. If so, wouldn't it
>be reasonable to conclude that scientists themselves would become
>increasingly aware of this and publicly state their findings? After all, how
>could scientists in different disciplines not say something if they were
>becoming more aware of the absence of hard evidence in support of
>Darwin's theory and were face to face with scientific data that pointed to a
>completely different theory-one that suggests the world was designed and
>exists for a purpose?" (Ankerberg J. & Weldon J., in Moreland J.P., ed.,
>"The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer",
>1994, p270).
>A now a new book by biologist Jeffrey Schwartz
>recommends ditching Darwin altogether, and looking
>for a new explanation of how life developed.

Stephen, Colson's commentary is such a gross misunderstanding of what
Schwartz is saying that it is absolutely laughable. And the fact that you
fell for it is truly sad. Lest anyone think that Schwartz no longer
believes in evolution (as this commentary and Stephens interpetation of it
implies) then think again. Schwartz is ditching Darwin's way of doing
things (most evolutionists have). Darwin's view of evolution is now 130
years old and was based upon 19th century science. His view that life has
evolved has survived. His mechanism of evolution hasn't. So when
christians, like Stephen, tell you scientists are leaving evolution because
they are ditching Darwin, it shows that they have no understanding of what
is going on. They have not left the evolutionary fold as those, whose views
require endless hope and imaginary visions of evolution defectors, want you
to believe.

To me, the failure to properly distinguish and communicate what is
happening with Schwartz is a failure on the part of commentators like
Colson to do their homework.

Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology

Lots of information on creation/evolution