Christian coverage of Tchadensis

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Tue Jul 16 2002 - 09:22:46 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: ID: A tent for all theists?"

    Christian coverage of the discovery of the ancient hominid has been sad and
    Family in Focus wrote:

    "Anthropologists have unearthed an ancient skull in the African nation of
    Chad that has a puzzling mix of ancient and modern features. The discovery
    is called the most important find in memory, partly because it is so very
    old. Interestingly, it is causing evolutionists to question some of the long
    held tenets of their theory."

    "The evidence for human evolution is relatively thin, and it's merely
    assumed that humans have evolved because evolution is accepted already,"
    Edwards said.

    With the rise of genetic science, he said evolutionists also are scrambling
    to explain how the massive amount of information found in DNA evolved. He
    said such holes in Darwinism leave an open door for the theory of
    intelligent design.

    "We know how information is produced," Edwards said. "It's produced via
    intelligent agency. The Darwinists do not know how it's produced via natural
    mechanism and they don't have a mechanism. We've got an answer and
    essentially they don't."

    The first excerpt which is the lead paragraph makes it sound like
    evolutionists are questioning the very foundation of evolution--they aren't.
    The second paragraph totally messes up what is known about information
    theory. Yet, if you say something false long enough everyone believes it.

    Answers in Genesis decided to comment without even looking at the original
    scientific reports. This illustrates that they have a
    Fire-First-Check-Facts-Later approach to apologetics (but in fairness, they
    do mention that they need to see the original papers). One wonders however,
    why they simply don't buy a subscription to Nature and get the articles on
    line. Afterall, they are supposed to be telling christians how to interpret
    scientific data yet they lack apparently lack subscriptions to the major
    scientific journals. They hypocritically write:
    "What we need to remember, however, is that the pronouncements in newspapers
    are not dealing with 'raw facts' but with interpretations that are already
    seen through culturally-determined 'glasses' which assume that evolution is
    a 'fact'. Seen through the 'glasses' of the Bible's real history, Toumai
    reveals nothing which would cause even a mildly raised scientific eyebrow."

    So they do the very same thing they are criticizing. They are not looking at
    the original papers yet at least the original news account did. Why can't
    AIG do the same as the newspaper?


    for lots of creation/evolution information
    personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 16 2002 - 11:24:50 EDT