A post in the Panda's Thumb refers to a 1995 article by Kurt Wise, and labels him an "honest creationist." (The Panda's Thumb post indicates how to access the article by Wise.) The Wikipedia article on him indicates that he is an important and influential young-earth creationist. He has more than adequate scientific credentials, having taken a Ph. D. in paleontology at Harvard under the late Stephen Jay Gould.
Wise says, in the indicated article, at least two interesting and important things:
". . . there is no sense in which creationist paleontology at this point is capable of addressing the traditional transitional forms issue in any rigorous sense." CEN Tech J., vol 9, no. 2, 1995, p. 216.
"Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds." p. 219 (emphasis in original)
Wise is not about to give up young-earth creationism, and he makes that clear. He believes that explanations compatible with young-earth creationism can be found eventually. However, he argues, in this article, that young-earth creationist scientists should be concentrating on fields other than fossil transitional forms.
Even though this article is nearly 15 years old, I know no evidence that young-earth creationist paleontology has changed enough in the meantime to negate what Wise said in 1995. In other words, the fossil record can be taken as providing evidence which supports mainstream evolutionary theory.
Thanks for reading.
8 comments:
what is your problem with young earth creationism? you consistently sight material that undercuts any positive take on it. no hebrew in their right mind could have ever read millions of years into the Gen account. all old earth creation is is an attempt to superimpose a scientific timeframe upon a text that could not be interpreted that way without a preconception of this theory. and undermining scripture does little for evangelism or the glory of God. there is good material out there that supports young earth creationism scientifically--check out the book "Thousands not Billions" as one of the best examples, and "Icons of Evolution" deals with most of the supposed transitional forms. Just be a little more fair to the more conservative position.
Thanks, anonymous, whoever you might be.
Granted, no Hebrew would have read millions of years into Genesis.
My basic problems with Young-Earth Creationism are two-fold.
1) The Bible itself tells us, in Psalm 19, and Romans 1:20, that God has revealed Himself to us through nature. (That's not the only way, of course!) To ignore that evidence, or distort it, is a serious mistake.
The post you are commenting on illustrates this. Kurt Wise is one of the most prominent Young-Earth Creationists, and he, himself, cannot find good scientific evidence for that position in the fossil record. There is abundant evidence that the earth is older than a few thousand years in that record.
2) The Bible does not necessarily teach Young-Earth Creationism. For example, Genesis 2:5 poses what I view are serious problems for the Young-Earth view. (See this post for more on that.) Many God-fearing, Bible-believing scholars are not convinced that the Bible definitely teaches that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that the days of Genesis 1 were literal, or that the flood of Genesis was world-wide. And, as far as I can determine, the Young-Earth view is comparatively recent, becoming prominent only in the nineteenth century.
On another matter, Icons of Evolution has been pretty thoroughly discredited, as I understand it. Wells is not a Christian, but a Moonie (although that doesn't make what he says wrong) and he is not a Young-Earth Creationist, but a member of the Intelligent Design movement.
More on Wells. He has written:
Many people have been given the impression that the chronology of Genesis is the root of the conflict between Christianity and Darwinism. Surprisingly, however, biblical chronology played almost no role in the initial opposition to Darwin's theory, because most Christians in the nineteenth century accepted geological evidence for the age of the earth. Nor was chronology an issue at the 1925 Scopes trial, because creationist William Jennings Bryan accepted the old-earth view. Historically and theologically speaking, the basic conflict between Christianity and Darwinism is not chronology, but design.
In other words, Wells is not a Young-Earth Creationist.
Sorry for the "anonymous" had to change the name to protect the innocent...
"To ignore that evidence, or distort it, is a serious mistake" agreed, my undergrad is in biological sciences. but just because Kurt Wise thinks that throwing a bone to old earth creationists or darwinists will earn him a hearing in a scientific community that blackballs young earth creationists, doesn't mean that this is the final word. Darwin himself believed that the fossil record was the greatest objection to his theory. and David Raup (curator for the Nat Science Museum in Chicago, and an evolutionist) was quoted as saying, "120 years after Darwin...we now have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time." Dr Gary Parker has written about half of his book, "Creation: Facts of Life" about the support for young earth creationism in the fossil record. and the science in "Thousands Not Billions" is way over my head, but I really encourage you to read it.
and I would argue that old earth creationism would be more recent comparatively speaking, b/c upto the 19th cent, nobody had even dreamed of millions of years in the biblical account, let alone billions.
I think it could just as well be argued about Gen 2:5 that it is one long sentence v.4-6 (as trans in the NKJV), and just a matter of fact statement rounding off the introduction to chapter 2.
and I think that an old earth position with a non-literal adam and eve poses many more problems biblically with the rest of scripture's witness, especially that of the gospels. i would rather think that our scientific conclusions may be further clarified in the future rather than conduct exegetical gymnastics to read into texts things that may not be there. our responsibility is not to put words into the mouth of God, and not say what He didn't say.
sorry, I won't site Icons anymore, didn't realize it was that discredited. there are plenty of other more reputable choices pointing out the major flaws in neo-darwinian macroevolution.
thanks for the interaction, I read your blog regularly, but I guess I got a little frustrated at beating that horse (of young earth creationism). but that is the world of blogging...exchange of ideas. if I can ever get my tech guy rolling, I am going to integrate a blog to our website and start blogging myself...
Thanks, anonymous:
Here is part of Genesis 2:, from the NKJV:
This [is] the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and [there was] no man to till the ground;
6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
I would note three things about this passage, as quoted here. First, the use of "in the day" seems to negate one of the fundamentals of Young-Earth Creationism (YEC), namely that the the first part of Genesis always uses "day" to mean a twenty-four hour period.
Second, this seems to be describing a time period when there was dry land, but no humans yet. Dry land, and plants, are both mentioned as being created, or brought about, on the 3rd day. Why specially mention a period in the middle of the third day?
Third, and most importantly, the passage reads as if humans were created before green plants.
All three of these considerations seem to argue against a straightforward literal interpretation of Genesis 1.
Hi Martin,
I would really like to encourage you to read Evolution:The Grand Experiment Vol 1 and Living Fossils Evolution: The Grand Experiment Vol 2.
They will clear up a lot of issues you have with science vs. a literal interpretation of the Bible as it reads.
You don't have to twist God's words. He makes everything plain to those willing to listen
Carolyn
Thanks, Anonymous.
I looked up information about the books. They are by Carl Warner, I believe it is.
Post a Comment