Would you allow evolutionists to teach Sunday School?

I suppose that I should respond to Bob's last post out of a sense of completeness. But first a joke that seems germane.

A man is on a business trip to a small town out west. One day he decides to stop into one of the local watering holes before heading back to his hotel. He sits down at the bar and orders a drink. Startling him, the guy next to him jumps up and yells "Four!" Everybody dies laughing. A few minutes later another guy stands up and yells "Sixteen!" There are a few snickers. Later, another person stands up and yells "Seven!" Again, a complete uproar. So the man asks the bartender what is going on. The bartender answers that they have all been hanging out together for so long that everyone already knows everyone's jokes so they have just numbered them. When you want to tell a joke, you just stand up and yell the number of the one you want to tell and people will laugh if they thought that one was funny. After a few more drinks, the visitor decides to join in. He gets up and yells "Eight!" Dead silence. The bartender leans in and says "Some people just don't know how to tell a joke."

That is kind of where we are with Bob, here. Arguing the facts is hard so he argues with quotes. But we have all seen them before. We know that when he quotes Asimov that he is going to leave out the part of the quote where Asimov disagrees with Bob's conclusion. When he makes his bird claims, he is not going to bother to support them. When he quotes Simpson, he is going to butcher the quote and claim that Simpson was saying something other than what he intended. By the same toke, when Bob starts quoting, I am going to dig out the full quotes and show where Bob did not treat the quote truthfully. Bob will then claim that the quotes where nothing more the atheists admitting defeat and then turning right around and defending what they just admitted was wrong because they have no other choice. We all know that the context denies this claim. But Bob's misquotes must be dealt with each time in case we have a lurker who is seeing them for the first time. Why he continues to post the misquotes we will never know I suppose. People usually give up once they are exposed. It is tiresome but necessary to have to do this everytime. So, on to the last post.

First, he gives three quote that he claims are from me. I think they are actually quotes of others I have used in some of my posts. But he does not give us links so we don't know for sure. These quotes speak truthfully about the nature of Archeopteryx.

Bob then goes back to one of his old statements. He says.

This is the claim that I have been asking Bob to support for months and which he refuses to support. He has been shown repeatedly that it is false. But know factual support of the claim has ever been forthcoming nor has he admitted an error, nor has he (as seen by the last post) stopped using the claim.

You cited Dodson and Howgate. I asked you for evidence that these guys thought that archy was only a bird and not a transitional to support your assertion. I say that to not do so shows that you know what they were really saying and chose to assert that they were saying something else regardless. You did not support your assertion and instead choose to merely repeat yourself. So I'll do your work for you. But you will not like the results.

Why do we not first make a direct quote from Howgate?

Howgate, M. E. 1984. "The teeth of Archaeopteryx and a reinterpretation of the Eichstätt specimen." Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 82: 159-175.

"However, these authors present a decidedly ambiguous reconstruction of the Archaeopteryx ankle; it shows the ascending process associated equally with the astragalus and calcaneum. The Archaeopteryx ankle depicted by Martin et al. (1990, fig. 1G) seems, in fact, to be structurally intermediate between the theropod ankle and the neornithiform bird ankle."

Well, it seems that he may have thought it was a transitional after all.

Then I came across your very reference.

Dodson, P., 1985, International Archaeopteryx Conference: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, vol. 5, p. 177-9.

In here, Dodson lists over 20 specific shared characteristics between Archeopteryx and specifically coelurosaur theropods. I think he was making a case for archy being a transitional, don't you?

Let me give you another reference from Dodson.

Barsbold, R.; Maryanska, T. & Osmolska, H. 1990. Oviraptorosauria. In: Weishampel, D. B.; Dodson, P. & Osmolska, H. (eds.), The Dinosauria. 249-258. University of California Press, Berkeley.

In this reference, the gentleman you cite discusses how some dinosaurs, such as Oviraptor and Ingenia, have furculas like birds as further evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

You might want to see this reference of his.

CHINSAMY A., CHIAPPE L. & DODSON P. (1994): "Growth rings in mesozoic avian bones: physiological implications for basal birds." J.Vert.Paleont. 14(3, Suppl.): 21A

You will notice the word "basal" in the title. This means that he is studying the first birds and recognizes and accepts that they evolved.

One more reference for you.

Smith, J.B., You H., and P. Dodson. 1998. "The age of the Sihetun quarry in Liaoning Province, China and its implications for early bird evolution." Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program, 30(7):38A.

See the phrase "bird evolution" in the title? You still assert that he thinks archy is just a bird and not a transitional? This paper ties the specimens found in Liaoning with other bird transitionals.

Then we move on to the infamous Patterson quote about no transitionals. Again, this is something that has been pointed out to Bob in the past. Dr. Patterson also said:

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

Dr. Patterson "Evolution" 1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

But even better is his response to the quote in a personal letter.

"Dear Mr Theunissen,
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely,

[signed]

Colin Patterson"

It should be obvious by now that he was not saying that there are not transitional forms but that you cannot tell for sure whether a given specimen is on the direct line to another or if it is a side branch. That is a far cry from saying that there are no transitionals or that archy is not a wonderful find intermediate between birds and reptiles.

Bob then quotes Gould in a seemingly damaging statement. I think it is best answered by another Gould statement that addresses both the issue and quote mining.

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, Norton, New York.

Then a Stahl quote about the lack of feather intermediates. Alas it is an old quote and we have since discovered feathers in many forms of intermediate development and some of the genetic basis for how feathers developed.

But I think Bob has used all these quotes before and should have read the responses given in the past that show that the quotes are not being used correctly. Yet we see them over and over.

"Twelve!"

 

All Christians should hate theories that leave no room for GOD.

 

So...Does chemistry leave room for God? Where? What role do you see for God in chemistry?

 

Bob, do you have a coherent argument to make? Apparently not.

"Notice - that he "pretends" to claim that if I would just make stuff up and claim it as true - he would accept this BETTER - than having his own atheist evolutionist ICONS admitting the SAME salient points that I would have made against evolutionism!!"

Nope, I want you to present some sort of verifiable fact instead of misquoting good men and calling it an argument.

"The idea that I would STOP using exact quotes SIMPLY because they expose the flaws of evolutionism, and support a key salient point exposing the blunders of evolutionists - is just silly."

Two things. First it is your claim that the scientists at the conference decided that archy was just a bird and not an intermediate that I want you to support. You keep throwing out that same quote about it, the one referencing Dodson and Howgate, from the same YE trash site over and over. This dispite being shown from these two men's own presentations that they presented evidence showing archy to be a transitional form. If you want to make the claim support it. If you cannot, quit making it.

Second, you may be using exact quotes but you are doing so dishonestly. You are like the atheist who quotes the Bible as saying "There is no God." It is an exact word for word quote. Do you find it to be an honest quote?

 

No, I would not. Several years ago we were in Sunday School instead of teaching it. Once a month we had a S/S breakfast with another class and the teachers took turns. The man who taught the class we should have been in (age wise but since we had adopted our grandson as an infant, we fit better with the class that had children still at home) taught. It happened to be the Sanctity of Life Sunday. He proceeded to teach and said he believed in abortion in the case of incest or rape.

We NEVER moved into his class and met with him to let him know why we couldn't sit under his teaching. Now, we still love him and he gives me a big hug each Sunday but I would never sit under someone who taught such a lie.

 

Back to the origianl question: Would I as a Pastor allow someone whom I knew to affirm macro-evolutionary theories of creation to teach a Sunday School class in my church? The answer is emphatically NO.

The reasons:

1. If someone will choose to affirm and teach scientific conjecture over the clear precepts that are discovered from the careful exegesis and exposition of God's Word, they have proven that they have more faith in academia than in the Word of God. I want teachers who will teach the Word of God, no matter what the world may say about them and the doctrines of the Book that they teach.

2. James 3:1 plainly says, "Let not many of you become teachers, knowing that you shall receive a stricter judgment." I'm not about to put a man at risk of God's stricter judgment if I know that they are not 100% committed to teaching only the products of faithful exegesis.

3. If a man will compromise on what the Bible says about how God created the world, he will settle for Noah's flood as some allegorical (non-literal) account. He will be comfortable saying that the children of Israel crossed the Reeds Sea and not the Red Sea. He will be willing to tell his class that Jonah and the "great fish" never happened. He may even be willing to follow Bultmann in "demythologizing" the Scriptures, and thus deny the existence of miracles (including Christ's resurrection from the dead). I don't want a SS teacher that undermines God's power by trying to argue it away through science or any other means - I want teachers who believe that "the Lord God Omnipotent reigns" (Rev. 19:6).

4. If a SS teacher is willing to compromise in doctrinal matters (such as creation), then he will be even more eager to compromise in social, vocational, recreational, etc. matters. I want teachers who fear God enough that they wouldn't dare compromise the integrity of His Word. A man who is committed to "sola scriptura" is a man who is far less likely to compromise in other areas of life.

These are just a few reasons that a macro-evolutionist should not be allowed as a SS teacher in our biblical-based churches. I'm sure I could think of plenty more.

 

Way back in 1950 scientists in a laboratory heated pantoyl lactone, beta-alanine, and cysteamine to a temperature of 105 degrees Fahrenheit and thereby produced pantetheine. Do you have any idea what has been going on in the laboratories around the world since 1950? Obvious not! When scientists devote their lives to studying God’s creation, you call it junk science. Well, what do you suppose we call it when Christians are so dishonest as to make ludicrously false and blasphemous comments about men and women for whom Christ died? You can be thankful that the rules of this message board do not permit me to post my personal opinion of your posting conduct without using more euphemisms than there are in an unabridged dictionary!

 

This post reminds me of the famous monkey trial of 1925 in Dayton Tennessee where Clarence Seward Darrow made a monkey out of William Jennings Bryan. Apparently, however, some people in Tennessee just didn’t get it!

 

"I USED EXACT QUOTES and you untruthfully call them "misquotes"."

They are misquotes because you edit them down to make the author appear to say something he did not intend. You change the meaning of the quote which is dishonest. You are like the atheist who quotes the Bible as saying "There is no God."

"I QUOTE YOUR OWN ICONS instead of using MY OWN science icons - and you pretend like you can not comprehend this level of objectivity."

You have no objectivity. You change the meaning of what they have to say. BEsides, quotes are not facts they are opinions. Do you have any facts?

"YOU ARGUE with your OWN atheist evolutionist icons saying "ASIMOV IS WRONG" where his faithful report of GOOD SCIENCE exposes a flaw in evolutionism."

I do have a quibble with the presentation of entropy that Asimov uses because it is not true thermodynamic issue. But even that is a side issue becuse you edit out the very part of his quote where he disagrees with your conclusion. That is dishonest. Either you agree with him or not. You cannot pick and choose in order to make an author appear to say something with which he disagrees. It is not honest.

"I CLAIMED that they admitted that archy is a TRUE BIRD."

Admitted or claimed. Whatever. Your basic point is that these guys said that it was a bird and not an intermediate. You cited Howgate and Dodson. I have shown that they and all the other papers I can find from the conference show that they were actually presenting information to show archy as an intermediate. I would like to have from you some fact that disputes this and supports your claim.

"You have been unnable to show even ONE example of how an EXACT quote was done "dishonestly"."

I think the SImpson quote sums it up nicely. YOu claim that he says the horse series does not exist and then over the next few sentences he talks about trends in horse evolution and conclude by calling the horse series a "classic" case of evolution.

"I USED EXACT QUOTES to show that Archy is a TRUE BIRD."

Why don't you give me that "exact quote" again. I seem to have missed.

"I used EXACT quotes - on the EVERY points where you say "ASIMOV IS WRONG" in the case of entropy."

Except that you editted out the part where he disagrees with you. So much for truthful quoting.