Can you provide the publisher and/or ISBN for this book? Sounds like this
will be an excellent addition to my library.
Best Wishes,
William - N6RKY
AJ Crowl wrote:
>
> Hi ASA,
>
> 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
-- William A. Wetzel icq-uin# 13983514 http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky http://www.qsl.net/n6rky mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net mailto:n6rky@qsl.net