You know, I've read the book Carl Kincaid refers to in his letter (16 April 2008), but I have also read more than the book ("Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells).
Does he really have any idea what scientists would say if they found deformities in the fossil record? He says some really weird things, like evolution must provide millions of transitional forms out of necessity (if we had millions of transitional forms, instead of the many hundreds of thousands, would he insist evolution then had to provide billions of transitional forms?), and that it would be said to be "475 million years old," which leads me to suspect he doesn't have any real grasp of what scientists would actually say. He also accuses scientists of faking data--which is awkward since any faked data, interestingly, is easily sussed out by scientists looking to duplicate results. What fakery have creationists like Jonathan Wells ever revealed? Every time I ask questions like that, all I get are crickets. Oh, I could go on, but Kincaid's letter is just bizarre.
But back to the book, which I recommend reading (along with a thorough rebuttal: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html ), for no other reason than it makes it obvious why nobody gets their science from creationists.
(Comments welcomed.)
2 comments:
Of course, you can't link to source material in a letter to the editor. Otherwise good stuff!
Yes, because paper sucks that way.
(Hey, it's not my outdated and dying technology.)
Post a Comment