Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Bob Helm.
I have cited Leonard Brands work already. His work on animal tracks in the coconino is fine but as I have pointed out he makes no claim in the literature about a global flood precipitated by a flood of a year or so despite what he may publish in the church press. For some of the considerations I have indicated if he did he would not at all be considered geologically sound.
Because of prejudice, the concept of a global flood cannot be discussed in mainstream scientific forums, even if no references to the Bible or God are included. J Harlan Bretz faced this same kind of prejudice when he tried to talk about the regional ice age flood or floods in eastern Washington, even though the evidence for such was overwhelming. Fortunately, the door of geology has since been cracked open slightly to catastrophism, and Bretz’ theory has been accepted. But Lyell still has too big a stranglehold on this discipline for a global flood to be considered at the present time.
With that said, those in the geological community who know Brand personally are well aware of the implications he was conveying in those articles.
Ariel Roth published proliferically in church publicationand in Origins (not indexed by pubmed or scopus as a peer reviewed publication) and of which he was a long term editor and as history has shown its existence depended on his enthusiasm. He has 6 peer reviewed publications from 1975-1986 listed in Scopus.His most recent paper in Journal of Paleontology on fossil coral orientation is extremely subtle in its creationist implications if any.
Roth’s work also dealt with growth rates in coral, which does have creationist implications, because it has been claimed that certain coral reefs are too old for the creationist time scale. Considering the rates at which corals grow, this is not true – especially if we are not rigid about 6,000 years.
Table of Contents
Bob Helm Also Commented
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Mike Manea: Mike, the problem is not a lack of evidence for the creationist model. The problem is the hold that the Lyell/Darwin model has on the scientific community, including all the psychological baggage that goes with it. This is not just a theory; this is a way of viewing all of reality (much like a religion), and for many people, it has great psychological appeal. For this reason, it is naive to think that it can be overthrown in a few years. However, the evidence for the creationist/catastrophist model continues to mount, and those with open minds are willing to at least examine it.
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Sean Pitman: I think you are correct. Thanks!
Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
@Ervin Taylor: Can you supply us with your coauthor, as well as the publisher. I would also like to obtain your book and read it. Thanks!
Recent Comments by Bob Helm
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be accepted on faith?I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to “evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, it’s interesting and ironic how churches repeatedly try to become more relevant by accepting Darwinism and other forms of liberalism, but in the end, they always die, while churches that maintain their creationist stance and conservative values continue to grow.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: I wondered if you would bring up alchemy. Just because Newton was wrong about alchemy, why try to slur him over it? Even though he was a great physicist, he was human, and he did make mistakes!
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Pauluc: Actually, there is one extrabiblical reference to Jesus’ Resurrection. In his “Antiquities of the Jews,” we have this from Flavius Josephus: “When the principal men among us had condemned Him [Jesus] to the cross, those who loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day. . .” This so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” has provoked fierce debate, with critics calling it an interpolation. However, it is written in the style of Josephus and appears in all the extant Greek manuscripts of “The Antiquities of the Jews.”
