Has anyone read David Young's "The Discovery of Evolution"? I imagine so, as
it came out in 1992. If you haven't then it's recommended reading. David
Young covers the whole rise in our knowledge of species, geology, biology
and biogeography since the beginning of the Scientific Era [c.1600] right up
to the emergence of the Modern Synthesis and the general agreement between
evolutionists in the late 1940s. It's history and apologetic rolled into
one, defending evolution and clarifying just what the various players
throughout have thought about life's history. The sections covering the
early geologists/biostratigraphers [e.g. Hutton, Werner, Cuvier ] and
evolutionists [e.g. Lamarck, Saint Hilaire, Chambers] was especially helpful
for me in understanding just what Michael Denton was talking about in
"Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" w.r.t Cuvier's ideas and the evolutionists
he opposed. If he had lived to Darwin's day I suspect Cuvier would not be
the bastion of anti-evolutionism Denton dressed him up as.
What's really interesting is c.1800 - c.1860 a time when a perception that
evolution had occurred seized the minds of scientists all over the West. The
puzzle was "how had it happened?" rather than had it happened by the end of
that period. After that 1860 - 1880 saw the general rise of Darwinism, while
opposition from other [!] evolutionists grew from 1880 - 1930, until modern
genetics began making sense of the data in the late '20s and the '30s.
Fascinating accounts of early studies are all through Young's book and he
succeeded in supporting Darwinism in my mind.
Since then we've had the molecular revolution of the period 1955 - 1975, a
renaissance in human evolutionary studies since 1975, and the current rise
of computational systematics and simulation, coupled with the deeper
insights into development and ethology. All this is hardly the result of
some sort of delusion, and hardly a "Tower of Babel" scenario. It makes
sense of the world, in my view, better than any YEC model can because it's
committed to what is really there in Nature, not what some short passages in
a book tell us.
Metaphysical deductions from evolution aren't valid, but atheist
evolutionists will still make them based on what they see in Nature. Should
that make us close our eyes to the evidence in the world around us? No.
Wilfully ignorant triumphalist Creationism is what has turned me away from
giving any Creationist time of day [apologies to Allen, Bill and Art, who
don't fit that category. Plus whoever else I missed - no one on this list is
wilfully ignorant, I've noticed.] When I open "Creation ex nihilo" and get
the populist garbage that is peddled as "Scientific Creationism" I get
angry, and I get even more angry with people who prattle off a litany of
supposed "proofs for a young world" in any and all fora of the Web that even
peripherally discusses Origin issues. Personally I'd like to see some
argument that isn't over 20 years old! And one that's not long since refuted
by data or argument! No moon-dust, shrinking suns, short period comets or
ion levels in the sea arguments please!
Any thoughts all you YECs who haunt this place? I'm not trying to pick a
fight, I just want honest reasons for why you believe what you believe. I've
heard all the Biblical arguments too, so please don't repeat them as thought
they are all sufficient. The fact that other Bible believers still believe
in an Old World is surely a sign that Bible texts are open to
interpretation.
yours in expectation,
Adam