tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post1305284552223997116..comments2023-09-09T07:28:35.681-04:00Comments on Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist: New ABC Article on Ardipithecus Draws FireJimpithecushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-70950708998462085192009-10-14T09:12:28.097-04:002009-10-14T09:12:28.097-04:00Kinda drives the point home, doesn't it?Kinda drives the point home, doesn't it?Jimpithecushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-53169455196723584692009-10-14T01:39:00.861-04:002009-10-14T01:39:00.861-04:00I liked the skulls.I liked the skulls.Kenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17391006582755355252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-32747311324860943452009-10-12T09:28:52.032-04:002009-10-12T09:28:52.032-04:00Arni, thanks for the insight. What really struck ...Arni, thanks for the insight. What really struck me was, as you pointed out, the unbalanced nature of the report. At least the NYT would have gotten someone who knew something about the find, like John Noble Wilford.Jimpithecushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-995686339497780792009-10-12T09:27:04.754-04:002009-10-12T09:27:04.754-04:00Anonymous, that's the problem. When they don&...Anonymous, that's the problem. When they don't know what they're talking about, they say contradictory things. And they say <i><b>stupid</b></i> things. Interestingly, Jim Foley has a great chart that lays out what different creationists think about different fossils. It is <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Jimpithecushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-33859635836469391022009-10-12T08:08:37.132-04:002009-10-12T08:08:37.132-04:00I'm a freelance journalist and when I read the...I'm a freelance journalist and when I read the article I was struck by how badly it was written. It's not structured well. Some of the quotes are just confusing, like the ending quote you mentioned: <br /><br />"Evolution is supposedly based on science, but the science does not prove what they want it to. Creationism is not based on scientific observation but on God's word. God created everything in six days, and that's it."<br /><br />So evolution is bad because it's bad science, but creationism is good because it's not science at all? I've never heard that argument before. It seems like bad reporting from someone who has never heard creationist arguments before and therefore weirdly mixes up the "Evolution is bad science, while creationism is good science" and "The Bible is God's word so everything, also the science, it says is inerrant" argument. <br /><br />The reporter also doesn't seem to know much about science, since he calls Ardi a "long-sought 'missing link'". Excuse me? Yes, Ardi's a link and until it was found we didn't know about it, but the missing link myth is, well, a myth. As Dawkins says, even if we had no fossils evolution would still be perfectly obvious. <br /><br />I know the article is about creationist reactions to Ardi, but the article feels a bit off balance. Maybe it's the relatively bad presentation of the science in the article. There should have been comments from an evolutionist or two who knew what they talked about (and the stock quote from Lovejoy doesn't count).<br /><br />One thing I did like about the article is how it quotes Menton as saying the he thinks it's a conspiracy that they revealed Ardi this year, with the 200th and 150th anniversaries. Typical creationist thinking about publicity instead of actual scientific work.Arni Zachariassenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13121173674036665609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-88277407160834753852009-10-12T05:48:44.663-04:002009-10-12T05:48:44.663-04:00I particularly like the part about Kenyon and Davi...I particularly like the part about Kenyon and Davis arguing about Homo erectus being "little more than apes", as if one goes to answersingenesis - http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/erectus.asp - we find their article says "The morphological differences within all erectus specimens and between erectus, Neanderthal, and all Homo sapiens are so small that there is not the slightest reason to doubt that every form should be classified in a single human species, as we have already seen advocated."<br />Of course listening to creationists argue about which hominid fossils are '100% human' and which are '100% ape', with no possibility of any degree of variance, is great entertainment and in itself evidence for the transitional nature of these fossils.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com