Polly wanna cracker?

Danny starts out by asking the T-bloggers how many of us “subscribe to a young earth? To special creation? To God-guided common descent? To God-free common descent, with the only ‘miracle’ in the initiation of the universe? I hope there are at least a few of you in the latter two camps.”

I don’t know the answer to that question since I never asked my colleagues that question. I didn’t ask them to fill out a job application. I didn’t interview them.

Speaking for myself, I subscribe to a “young” earth and special creation.

Continuing:

“To make the creation myth more amenable to reality? I especially enjoyed reading Glenn R. Morton, Christian evolutionist, shredding the misconceptions of persons like yourself [eklectos], who claim that the Bible has to be ‘perverted’ to incorporate an evolutionary interpretation of the Hebrew creation myth.”

Danny has become so blinded by his irreligious hostility that he lashes out at anything and everything, like a rattlesnake writhing in a forest fire.

Does he in fact believe that Gen 1-2 is compatible with evolution? Does he regard theistic evolution as a viable option?

Presumably not. After all, he’s an atheist, and a pretty militant atheist at that.

So what’s the point of plugging an evolutionary interpretation of Gen 1-2? That’s hardly consistent with his own position.

Continuing:

“Who gets to define terms like scientific ‘theory’ in your world: religionists or the scientific community itself?”

Note the assumed antithesis between scientists and religionists, as if these were mutually exclusive.

Continuing:

“Because it's pretty clear that the latter decided long ago that evolution is a historical fact and a theory. And, it sure does seem that they have evidence to substantiate their claim...”

Yes, it sure does “seem” that way. Unfortunately for Danny, appearances can be deceiving—especially for those with an appetite for self-deception.

i) To begin with, a lot of the very same “evidence” which Douglas Theobald has marshaled in favor of naturalistic evolution is cited by Kurt Wise as evidence of special creation—or intelligent design, by Michael Denton.

Cf. K. Wise, Faith, Form, & Time (B&H 2002); “The Origin of Life’s Major Groups,” J. Moreland, ed. The Creation Hypothesis (IVP 1993), 211-34; M. Denton, Nature’s Destiny (Free Press 1998).

ii) Another problem is that what the reader is actually treated to is not the raw evidence, but graphic reconstructions.

For example, we’re told that “we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological ‘gaps."

Unfortunately, that’s what we’re “told,” but that’s not what we’re “shown.”

Likewise, we’re told that “We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates.”

Once again, that’s what we’re told, but that’s not what we’re shown.

All we’re ever actually shown are diagrams that “arrange” scattered bits and pieces of evidence into an evolutionary pattern.

There’s no slide show from the very same site in which we are allowed to see for ourselves a continuous series of intermediate species given in situ in the natural record itself.

I’m reminded of all those prehistoric nature shows in which computer animation does the spadework.

Continuing:

“What is your scientific theory of creationism?”

That’s an illogical question. One doesn’t need a theory to disprove a theory. Evolution could be a lousy theory regardless of what alternative, if any, is in the pipeline.

“I've yet to find one. I've found all kinds of conjecture and speculation, but never, once, a single, coherent, rational framework within which explanation is cogently argued from the evidence to support YEC or anything resembling.”

We’ve been over this ground with Danny many times before regarding creation ex nihilo.

But because Danny is unable to find a flaw in our answer, all he can ever do is to repeat his borrowed arguments in his very best impersonation of Polly the parakeet.