Replies

No time at all? I guess you have not seen,or read, the abundance of writings out there refuting evolution

au contraire. But the last that made a good case was Hugh Miller c.1857. But the pre-Darwinian theory he was refuting was the nonsense of Robert Chambers, a speculation not credited today, except by Creationists as their version of "What Evilution is".

And Miller, geologist, Christian and Creationist, fully accepted the geological column and the concept of deep time whic arose from the speculation of James Hutton (not Charles Lyell).

And academic freedom to simply discuss the data relevant to macroevolution and allow the presentation of other alternatives. actually existed 1-200 years ago, amd the decision was made on which alternative made sense, and explained things.

That's how science works. one field impinging on another and answering questions. The concept of formation over deep time explained the geological column, the fossils in the column showed biologiocal change and speciation. Then the similarity between the column in Africa and S America inspired the idea of Continetal Drift (which again depends on deep time). And once CD (or the later modification Plate Tectonics) was part of "flawed science" there was then an understanding of why fossil marsupials are found only in Australia and the Americas and not in the Mountains of Ararat.

But I expect the alleged Dr Jay Wilde may not know that. The scraps of his writing you quote do not impress.

Frankly, if you are using Mr "You simply cannot put your faith in something as flawed as science." to teach your son biology, you are harming him.

A friend of mine did much work (in the 1940s) on plant fossils of Africa and South America. He was able to show that old fossils consisted of several families; newer fossils consisted of two sets of families, both clearly descended from the old fossils. Each of the two new sets of families was confined to either South America or Africa. He interpreted this as evidence for drift.

I've misled you if you think I was trying to impress anyone with Dr. Wile's writings. I thought they were good points that he made and I wanted to post them. I think it unfair to judge him,if you are, from the 'scraps' posted. That would be a huge disservice to Dr. Wile. Judge my ineptness at debate, not his.

Actually, when my son read Dr. Wile's module on evolution he came to me and said that Dr. Wile makes a good case FOR evolution in many respects. My son was surprised and so was I. I think he and I are so used to both sides bashing each other that no one is really listening. In Dr. Wile's text, I think he truly strived to understand Darwin's work and explain it to his students, but he disagreed with Darwin's conclusions and gave a variety of reasons why.

And, you are correct, I would be doing harm if I used "simply cannot put your faith in something as flawed as science" exclusively. I think this year I've learned more clearly-- that methodical and honest methods must be applied to whatever aspect studied. It is no place for emotion. And I learned how much science can change and how what one person discovers in one generation can tumble down the next or be further built upon. It's not an easy subject for me to grasp and I admit that my opinion is based on my faith in a living God who has given me a faith that believes He is the Creator of all things. Believing in creationism is not my salvation however and likewise believing in evolution is not one's doom as some might believe.