Signs point to "neigh."
Okay, that was terrible.
Aaaanyway, here's a link to article on the problems with the Horse Series, courtesy of Steve:
http://www.icr.org/article/4096/
Here is a detailed rebuttal that I have not yet read:
http://pigeonchess.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/more-scientific-ignorance-from-dr-john-morris/
Feel free to post your own thoughts in the comments.
My two cents: I think the "just so" story nature of some explanations of how certain traits or species evolved lead people to reject the theory of evolution itself when they find something wrong with the particular explanation. Part of Dr. Morris' argument seems to be that the scientists got it wrong in the textbooks so they must have it wrong in their minds. This may be a failure of popular science or science education that they give people enough information to think they know what they're talking about but not enough that they actually know what they're talking about. I'm totally guilty of this myself--I have no idea how fossils are dated or what experiments have produced the evolution of species, but I still feel like I can talk about the evidence for evolution to an ID supporter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Certainly I would not argue that this example is proof against evolution. The problem is when it is presented as proof FOR evolution.
For two reasons...
1. As stated, it would merely be a proof that variation occurs within a genus, which no educated person disputes;
2. As stated, it is misleading, inferring a vertical progression, which is not supported by the fossils.
Tony Britain in his refutation should reserve some of his thunder against Dr. Morris for the biology textbooks which still publish this "evidence" so many years after these discrepancies are well known, discrepancies which Tony Britain himself calls "old news".
Post a Comment