I first saw creationists in action one night in 1982 on CBN, where the host of one show would run various debates (I believe it was David Ankerberg). This particular night, a creationist was debating a scientist (kind of looked like Drs. Morris and Awbrey, though I cannot be sure since I didn't knew of either of them at the time). I remember that the scientist showed several slides of hominid fossils, such as knee joints (to show evidence of developing bi-pedalism). Then he showed slides of a human pelvis and chimpanzee pelvis side-by-side. First from the side, then from the top, he pointed out two sets of characteristics that clearly distinguish the one from the other (i.e. whether viewed from the side or from the top, the pelvis could be positively identified as human or chimpanzee). Next he showed the same two views of a hominid pelvis. From the one view it was definitely ape, from the other it was definitely human, thus demonstrating it to be a intermediate form. The creationist then concentrated solely on the view that displayed the ape characteristic and completely ignored the one displaying the human characteristic, and proclaimed the hominid pelvis to be 100% ape and not the least bit human. And he persisted in making that claim despite the scientist repeatedly pointing out to him the obviously human characteristics in the view he was ignoring. Of course, the host declared this to be a creationist victory and threw in the standard gross misinterpretation of punctuated equilibrium for good [?] measure.
This event made a lasting impression on me. The creationist's steadfast ignoring of the blatantly obvious evidence that was repeatedly pointed out to him is a selective blindness that I have found to pervade much of the creationist literature.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
