[geocentrism] Re: Evolution
- From: "Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:41:00 -0500
On Sep 19, 2007, at 3:59 AM, Paul Deema wrote:
Since no creationist to the best of my knowledge, has ever given a
definition of 'kind', I doubt that you would break the mould but we
live in hope. Are you prepared to offer such a definition?
I suppose that's a perennial problem, since everything asserted must
be to best of our knowledge (how can it exceed our knowledge, after
all?). If one's knowledge is broad-based and well-read in the top
creationist literature, that observation would have some inductive
weight. But I suspect this is not the case for you, Paul, since the
single highest profile creationist is the late Stephen Jay Gould's
assistant, Dr. Kurt Wise, and Dr. Wise has developed an entire locus
of creationist science concerning the definition of kinds
(baraminology). So, I'm afraid that your off-the-cuff criticism could
have been better researched with little effort.
Martin
P.S. Note the circularity in the "Criticism" section in the
Wikipedia article on baraminology -- e.g., that no articles
concerning the topic appear in scientifically peer-reviewed journals.
How quaint, considering how the scientific community savaged a pro-
evolutionist editor for publishing Steve Dembski's paper on
Intelligent Design in a Smithsonian-affiliated scholarly journal --
savaged even though the paper had been unanimously approved by the
journal's entire submission review committee (all evolutionists). The
scandalous conduct of the Smithsonian in the aftermath of the
publication made it abundantly clear that there is indeed a near-
total blackout being enforced. If you're unaware of this situation,
I'll provide links to illuminate the matter further. The controversy
made it into the mainstream media -- this isn't some vague conspiracy
theory over an obscure incident, this became big news with a high
profile.
Other related posts:
