Re: Commentary: Living with the Darwin Fish

"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1173820832.130341.280070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Mar 13, 3:50 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From the article:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Why the discovery of yet another 'missing link' doesn't destroy my
faith.

Stan Guthrie | posted 3/12/2007 09:05AM

I've always secretly identified with the apostle Thomas. Upon hearing
eyewitness accounts of the Lord's resurrection, Thomas stubbornly
said, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my
finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I
will never believe." Doubting Thomas could have been a journalist.

When I became a Christian, I began looking for real-world evidence to
bolster my faith in Christ-whether that evidence came in the form of
threads snipped from the Shroud of Turin or splinters supposedly from
Noah's Ark. I rebelled at the sneering claims of atheistic
evolutionists such as Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, who assert (with
complete faith) that a proper understanding of physical law leaves no
room for "the God hypothesis." Every science course I ever took
assumed that we evolved from "primordial soup" in a random,
purposeless process. No God required.

What I read in Genesis didn't seem to square with mainstream
scientific theory, so I decided the theory was wrong. After all,
"objective" scientists with naturalistic agendas had fallen for
hoaxes before (just google "Piltdown Man"), and what little fossil
evidence there was seemed skimpy. I wasn't alone in my skepticism.
According to Gallup, approximately half of Americans express serious
doubts about evolution.

Last year, however, came word of Tiktaalik roseae, which looks
discomfitingly like those offensive "Darwin fishes" on the cars of
smug college professors. Giddy evolutionists immediately hailed the
375-million-year-old fossil as a "missing link" between fish and land
animals. "It's a really amazing, remarkable intermediate fossil,"
scientist Neil H. Shubin told The New York Times. "It's like, holy
cow."

So what's a Doubting Thomas to do? First, we need to remember that
scientists have hailed "missing links" before, only to be embarrassed
when further evidence came out. The Discovery Institute, which
supports Intelligent Design, noted that enthusiasm over this latest
find is a backhanded admission by paleontologists that the fossil
record has not been kind to Darwin's theory.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------

Read it athttp://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/march/37.74.html

J. Spaceman

reading the entire article, it would seem you are guilty of a
quotemine.


I don't know if I'd blame Jason for this; the article is certainly
front-loaded with "doubting evolution"-fraught phrases, and it's only
when one reads the whole thing that one finds a relatively standard
theistic evolution viewpoint, explicitly accepting common descent, for
instance.

I do think the excerpt is a little misleading, but that's as much the
essayist's fault as Jason's: it's sloppy form.

-JAH

.

Quantcast