Re: Conspiracies and party lines

Glenn Morton (grmorton@gnn.com)
Mon, 30 Dec 1996 20:45:47

>However, the Evolutionist Party is much larger, much more united, much more
>powerful in the culture. ANY challenge, be it from YECs or biochemists like
>Behe, and they tar their critics with the same brush(e.g., Nature mag calling
>Behe a fundamentalist apologist).They hold the power, too, in the academy and
>in the journals. And when was the last time the ACLU represented ICR?

I have posted my ideas on Talk origins and got no flack at all and I was
arguing for a historical Genesis 1-11. Maybe the problem is not that
evolutionists hate the Bible, but that they hate factual error. The
anti-evolutionists really don't get their observational facts correct.
>
>Your quote from Johnson was off the mark. He writes as a critic,not a Priest.
>He has no power to ship anyone anywhere. (I have visited his criminal law
>class, and he does have SOME power over the future Johnnie Cochran's of the
>world)

If he is doing that poorly training lawyers what is he doing taking on
evolution?

By the way, Johnson does indeed speak as a priest of the high church of
anti-evolutionism. And he too gets his facts wrong. I have posted this several
times. Johnson writes:

"By what Darwinian process did useful hind limbs wither away to vestigial
proportions, and at what stage in the transformation from rodent to sea
monster did this occur? Did rodent forelimbs transform themselves by gradual
adaptive stages into whale flippers? We hear nothing of the difficulties
because to Darwinists unsolvable problems are not important."~Darwin on Trial,
2nd ed. 1993,p. 87

Whales are believed to have come from Mesonyx, a Creodont mammal in the order
Carnivora. Rodents have their own order, Rodentia. No scientist believes that
a rodent gave rise to a whale. Johnson's lawyer training is showing. Yet as
one of the High Priests of anti-evolutionism, people in the creationist camp
defend this obvious sophmore level error in his science.

><<Yes I did begin life as an aquatic mammal. I was enclosed in my mother's
>amniotic sac which was filled with water.>>
>
>A not-so-clever change of topic here. We were talking fish stories, not
>mammalian reproduction. Caught ya (hook, line and stinker)!
>

I am disappointed you didn't think that clever. Oh well, you are hard to
please sometimes.

glenn

Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm