Johnson demolished here. Oh, wait! You have to settle for a sad little paraphrase of some of it, here. EsotericLucidity was too good and too new.
I see you took my advice and cited yourself. Good job!
I can't believe they deleted that brilliant post. Wow, they are desperate!
Johnson works with the theory of evolution that states that species adapt to changes in their environment through gradual genetic mutation that makes them fitter to survive in that environment than their competitors. This mutation over time turns a species into an entire new species and then into another and into another and on and on. It follows that the fossil record, writes Johnson, should look like the frames of a movie, with very subtle differences. And even if many frames were lost, one should still find sufficient frames to demonstrate the gradualness, the great, glacial-like slowness of the changing of one species into another. Yet, after nearly 200 years of searching, Man has yet to find a single fossil record demonstrating such gradual change.
Johnson then goes on to note that the phrase so important to the Darwinists "survival of the fittest" is a mere tautology, or circular reasoning. If the animal survived, it was fittest. If it was fittest, it survived. When in fact, many species much more fit to survive on earth than those that now exist may have come and gone without our notice for any number of reasons. And there may be many species alive that have never been the fittest to survive. Obviously, every gene pool would have tended toward the same form had there been a form that was fittest to survive. So the phrase means nothing.
All Johnson does is demonstrate that evolutionists must believe in great leaps in the evolutionary process that are unrelated to the environment and that occur on at least the scale of two, male and female, at a time and within a distance that they can find each other. And to believe this, that the Salamander gave birth to the frog in one giant leap of evolution while her neighboring salamander gave birth to a female frog within a near distance and time frame requires faith, like a religion.
To anyone that wants to know the true state of the evolution debate, I strongly suggest Phillip Johnson's, "Darwin on Trial," which is very readable and soundly strips bare the theory of gradual adaptation with the writings of the evolutionists themselves. They admit that their theory is flawed, but don't want anybody to find out until they can resolve the flaw. And resolving the flaw may well be something they cannot do. This is why it is time to start making sure that students are exposed to both the apologists for evolution and its critics. I think creationism is BS, so I am not urging that it be taught, but certainly Johnson should be taught along with Darwin. And finally, it is interesting to read Darwin himself, who foresaw many of the problems that have developed with his theory and discussed them at length. He knew his theory was incomplete, and could only be sustained if a complete fossil record in minutia detail could ultimately be found.
Had a look at your personal information too and wonder why any of us should find any of your evidently poorly-reasoned, scientifically unaccomplished, un-necessarily beligerent, and generally unpleasant commentary worthy of further discussion by anyone on this topic.
But as your website says, you do probably just have too much time on your hands, so you chose to pick fights on topics you don't understand and look like the fool that you are for having done so.
You might want to re-invest some of that currently wasted time by actually educating yourself on the subject matter pertaining to natural and physical sciences. Your commentary might then have more weight. As a presumed author of 4 books, which you claim youself to be -- books which I suspect are not exactly flying off the shelves -- you might want to acquaint yourself with the works of someone like C.S. Lewis and learn what a real book author reads like.
I suspect that if your books read anything like your posts on FR, they are tomes fit for the paper recycler.