By the way, there is no such thing as a "creationist theory." Creationism is founded in the mythology of bronze age, nomadic herdsmen. There are no observations, hypotheses, or testing involved.
Much of our departure from the Dark Ages was the result of Creationist scientists like Louis Pasteur and Isaac Newton. Pasteur was strongly opposed to Darwinian Evolution at the time.
Furthermore, there were reasonable, Biblically compatible theories held by Creationists before the invention of evolution and Uniformitarianism. Before that, Catastrophism was the prevailing view, that a major catastrophe or catastrophes was the predominant force in shaping the world we see today. And it was believed core created species were made, rather than a common ancestor.
Evolution is actually the more recent theory. Same with the Big Bang theory. Same with Uniformitarianism. All are more recent theories, and the Creationist theories are the older ones.
Creationism arrives at conclusions first and then searches for facts to support the conclusions. Any facts that are contrary to the conclusions are rejected.
And you think this doesn't happen in Evolution? How do you explain the rush to judgment in assuming a linear transition to apes, and belief Lucy walked on all fours? How do you explain falling for hoaxes like Piltdown Man for decades by the scientific establishment? They had their conclusion and did not consider other alternatives. They wanted evidence too badly to do an honest evaluation at the time.
Actually, catastrophism was debunked without regard to any theory proposed by Darwin. Catastrophism was debunked by christian scientists who believed in creation before Darwin published his theories.
Source? According to the University of California, Berkeley, Catastrophism was abandoned only after Lyell invented his theory of Uniformitarianism out of dislike for the Bible.
quote:
"Catastrophism," as this school of thought came to be known, was attacked in 1830 by a British lawyer-turned-geologist named Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Lyell started his career studying under the catastrophist William Buckland at Oxford. But Lyell became disenchanted with Buckland when Buckland tried to link catastrophism to the Bible, looking for evidence that the most recent catastrophe had actually been Noah's flood. Lyell wanted to find a way to make geology a true science of its own, built on observation and not susceptible to wild speculations or dependent on the supernatural.
Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell - Understanding Evolution
Of course, the Biblical kinds, what you replace with "Core Created Species," has no support in reality. You see, there is no evidence to support that superstition that would warrant its inclusion in any science curriculum.
How do you explain sterility in interspeciary breeding? Why, if all species had a common ancestor, do we see animals even as closely related as horses and donkeys or lions and tigers produce sterile offspring? If they all had a common ancestor, why then does sterility result? This was a major issue for Darwin and he spent a whole chapter in "On the Origin of Species" trying to explain it away.
How do you explain the lack of transitions and stasis in the fossil record inconsistent with Gradualistic Evolution? This issue was becoming so dangerous to Evolution that Gould proposed his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium a few decades ago suggesting evolution went really fast for short time periods to explain away this growing body of evidence.
quote:
Macroevolution is, quite simply, evolution above the species level that has produced more than one species from a single ancestral lineage. For example: Mallard, Bottled Duck, American Black Duck, Gadwall, Northern Pintail, American Wigeon, Eurasian Wigeon, Northern Shoveler, Garganey, Cinnamon Teal, Blue-winged Teal, Green Winged Teal, etc. All of the above are of the same genus. Macroevolution has been well established as fact by several lines of research. To deny that fact is ignorant.
All of those could arguably be considered of the same core created parent species and thus Microevolution compatible with the Bible rather than Macroevolution indicative of a common ancestor.
quote:
So please name the "core created species" for us.
I will create a new topic proposal on this as it will require some serious examination for me. Genesis 1 and Leviticus 11 provide the outline from what I can tell, however.
™ Version 4.2