>"If fault is to be found for Johnson "making up evidence where none
>exists", I have to say, he is certainly entitled to. After all,
>if evolutionists like Stahl and other paleontologists do this all
>the time (and they do), he is merely exercising his legitimate right
>to propose his own version of what happened. Are you suggesting
>that only imaginative explanations which serve evolutionary pre-
>suppositions are to be allowed in a consideration of this process?
>
>Making up evidence where none exists is THE hallmark of evolutionary
>paleontology. Period. Let's not ever forget this. We see it every-
>where we look, from tabloids to the most esteemed journals. It is
>THE defining constant of evolutionary explanation. Without imagination,
<evolution would fall in a moment. Evolution is not largely supported by
>evidence folks, but by the pronouncement and perpetuation of endless
>stories which fill the gaps where evidence is lacking. The problem is,
>these stories form the BASIS upon which evolution rests its Mighty
>Presumption (that God did not Create).
I enjoyed your point very much. I wanted to say "Of course only
evolutionary presuppositions are allowed", but then someone would
take me seriously.:-)
However, lets make a clarification
here. There is a fine line between predicting what the evidence ought
to be if the theory is true and depending upon the none existent
evidence to support your view. In my view Johnson was using the
non-existent data from a hypothetical Rhipidistian to support his
contention that evolution is not true. I really do not see evolution
depending on the "just-so-stories" (as they have been called) as
much as non-evolutionists want to believe.The 'just-so-stories"
perform the function of prediction in evolutionary theory.
A good example of a "just-so-story" from another area of
science is the modern view of quarks. To the best of my knowledge,
no one has ever isolated a quark. Some theories of quarks say
that an isolated quark is impossible.(while maybe dated see
K. A. Johnson, Bag Model of Quark Confinement, Scientific American,
July,. 1979 starting on page 112)
However, what is noticed in atomic physics is that interactions
between the particles behave as if there are quarks. That is, according
to the predictions of quark theory. Here is a case of physics doing the
very thing you disdain in evolution. If you don't like that example what
about gravitons? These are the particles which govern gravity yet their
existence, has not been independently confirmed,(unless it is recently).
But matter behaves as if there were such things. From the observed
behavior of matter, we believe that gravitons and quarks do actually
exist even though not directly seen.
In evolution, the actual intermediate species may not be observed.
But the similarities and changes between the specimens found in the
fossil record behave as if there were intermediate species. Why is it
reasonable to watch behavior in a particle accelerator and deduce quarks
etc but not to deduce by the same methodology, the existence of species
we are unaware of? Why is the just-so-story O.K. in physics but not in
paleontology?
Kevin wrote:
>Indeed. I would point out that the "ability to concoct" any advantage
>is an exercise of imagination, not a foray into evidence.
I would tend to agree, but that is not the evidence they use.
The fish/amphibian transition has fish with tetrapod skulls, lungs and
gills, fin loss, and nasal passages and teeth similar to the
earliest tetrapods. The earliest tetrapods had lungs and gills,
teeth and skulls like the fish, and they had a retained tail fin. The skull
of the
Panderichthyids is lacking a motion existing in other fish of the period but
lacking in all terrestrial vertebrates. The fossils are found in
approximately
the correct stratigraphical level. All of this is not a foray into
imagination!
The apologetical failure of Christians to properly explain this type of
evidence
is unfortunate. Our books merely say that there are no transitional forms
and hardly ever discuss the details, I have brought out in this series of
posts.
Kevin wrote:
>{Phil Johnson} is "...arguing for creating a different perspective here
folks,
>and its one that I think all of us should appreciate. At some point we must
>ask ourselves the question: of what value is an edifice which is entirely
>built upon one assumption based on another presumption?
I agree, but I do not agree on which ediface has the largest problem with
this.
We assume that there are no transitional forms. What are those things I
have outlined? How will your college-aged children view them? Do we
keep silent and hope that they won't find out?
If evolutoin is wrong, that is perfectly fine with me, but I have not been
able to explain why these particular fossils appear at just these
stratigraphical intervals with a mixture of traits between the two groups.
What is your explanation?
If someone can give me a non-evolutionary explanation which explains
this then I will seriously reconsider my position. But saying that it
just happened by chance does not explain it.
glenn