From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Review of Creationist article
Date: 7 Sep 92 22:43:18 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: talk
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

Sorry about the delay in getting this posted.  I have had a rather busy
couple of weeks here.

I have read a supposedly good article from a Crationist journal, and
am now presenting my review of it.

The article is "Creationis Geology: Where fo the 'Precambrian' Strata Fit?"

It gets off to a bad start by repeating the usual Creationist distortions
of evolutionary biology.  This time with two extended quotes from rather
obscure sources.  Neither is from either a biological journal or a biology
text.  The more extensive quote is badly butchered with ellipses, suggesting
that it *may* have been edited to say what Dr. Snelling wanted.
[The material in question is from O'Rourke's article on pg 51 and following
in American Journal of Science, vol 276 (1976) in case anyone wishes to
trace down the original].

The next section is a brief overview of Creationist geology.  Other than
a direct appeal to Genesis, it really says very little.

Finally, the article shifts into a general review article of Precambrian
fossil finds, particularly in Australia.  This section, overall, seem to be
fairly decent.  The review is rather broad, and often glosses over details.
For a broad overview article this is acceptible, but it is rather
dissapointing, and is scarcely adequate for establishing any major
conclusions.  There is certainly nothing of any particularly surprise
anywhere in it, the facts are almost all quite well known among Precambrian
specialists, and even most paleontologists.  One wonders how the Creationist
'scientists' could have missed this data for so long?

There are also a number of consistant, disturbing errors in the presentation.
Some, like the repeated use of 'megascopic' to mean 'macroscopic' are
of little significance, other than as an indication of a surprising lack
of familiarity with the standard scientific literature.  Others are mor
serious.  The inclusion of the statement:
	[In reference to stromatolites].
	"(In passing, it should be pointed out that evolutionists
	should be puzzled as to how these so-called 'primitive' micro-
	organisms have survived so long in the fossil record, unchanged,
	unevolving, and not prone to extinction)".
This shows more about thier ignorance than anything else; ignorance not
only of the principles of evolutionary theory, but also of the very
fossil record they are supposedly reviewing.  Modern stromatolites are
*not* identical to the oldest known stromatolites.  In fact stromatolites
identical to the modern ones are extremely rare in the fossil record. Also,
the very oldest stromatolites are substantially different than even the
later Precambrian ones.

But, on top of all of that this shows a bit of ingorance they repeat several
times in the article.  It shows a totall misunderstanding of the nature
of microbial fossils - such fossils simply are *not* identifiable to the
species level, or even to the *family* level.  Getting the right *class*
for a fossil microbe is considered *good*.  Thus it is actually quite
impossible to determine either extinction rates or evolution rates for
such organisms.  Even if two fossil stromatolites were identical in gross
morphology (which is all that is available), this would *not* be evidence
that they were taxonomically identical.  Later on they repeat this same
basic error in reporting on non-colonial fossil microbes, with the repeated
statement "The same assemblage is known to occur in ..." or its equivalent.

There are also other indication that the author is not really keeping up
with the literature on the Precambrian, despite writing a review article
on it. For instance, he seems to be unaware of the serious queations about
the taxonomic position of the Ediacara fossils.  (Though to be fair, many
other paleontologists are in the same spot, but none of them have tried to
write a Precambrian review article).

The final section, "implications and discussion", is painfully bizarre.
It immediately starts out by *assuming* the Creationist position, and
proceeds to attempt to fit all of the data into the text of the Genesis
account.  Explanations are introduced merely to make particular data
fit within the predetermined framework.  This complete *reversal* of
sound scientific methodology makes the whole section utterly worthless.
The only criterion of 'truth' seems to be "does this fit the Genesis
account"?  This leads to the acceptance of some rather bizarre ideas.
[Of course, I am not really surprised, but the article would have been
better if this section were left out].

Two final observations.  It is amazing to see how hard Dr. Snelling found
it to discuss the fossils without resorting to 'standard' geological
terminology, with its hated "uniformitarian" assumptions.  He is constantly
citing estimates ages for fossils (though he always carefully places them
in quotes, or even adds a disclaimer to them).  And he cannot seem to find
any way to refer to the sedimentary column except using the normal geologic
ages and formation names.  I am surpsized he doesn't realize how telling
this is.

Second, he never seems to realize the full significance of the finds he is
reporting.  *All* sedimentary rocks that are suitable for microbial fossils,
of all ages have been found to have them.  And most metamorphic rocks that
could possibly retain any trace of organic content actually do so.
Thus if he took his conclusions to their logical conclusion he would have
to treat *all* sedimentary beds, and most lightly metamorphosed beds, as
*flood* deposites, and restrict the pre-Flood deposits to just the igneous
and highly metamorphosed basement rocks!  This  certainly does not leave
much around in the pre-Flood world!
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com