Re: ILLogical Evolution

Cliff Lundberg (cliff@noe.com)
Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:40:45 -0700

Susan Brassfield wrote:
>Cliff Lundberg wrote:

>why? I'm extremely curious why you think evolutionists want to conceal the
>Cambrian. It doesn't really help the creationist case nore does it conflict
>with evolution. Why do you think it's being concealed?

I think evolutionists in general are not comfortable with the Cambrian
*explosion*. Of course they admit the existence of "the Cambrian".
Pure Darwinian gradualism may be passe, but still, anyone who focuses
on the geologically instantaneous appearance of complex organisms
comprising all the modern phyla, and who questions the capability of
known mechanisms for bringing this about, must be prepared for
accusations of being a closet creationist. We're not going to learn the
truth when science is thus hindered by Darwinist dogma.

You mentioned earlier that the evolution/creation controversy was settled
a century ago. I have to ask, why does it still pique your interest? Is it
fun to bravely run through the corpse of creationism with your shining
sword of truth? Am I supposed to worry about creationists controlling
some funding out in the heartland? Like a missionary worrying about
some druids hanging on in the mountains of Britain somewhere?

No, the fun is in real science, and in questioning the dogma of smug
scientists. I ignore the theological stuff on this list; when a long thread
is running about flood geology etc, I filter those messages out automatically.
The value here is in the objective critique of evolutionary theory, which one
doesn't find in textbooks.

--
Cliff Lundberg  ~  San Francisco  ~  cliff@noe.com