Fossil Fish (named "Tiktaalik") Sheds Light on Transition

Tiktaalik was the front page headline story in the NY Times yesterday.While I was reading the story, one of my employer-physicians happened by and asked, "I know that's of great interest to people like you and me, but why is it a front page story?"It occurred to me that it was a front page story for general readership because of the strenuous efforts of creationists et al. to undermine the credibility of the ToE and to impose religious views in the classroom. Without their social and academic agenda, the story would have been saved for the Science section or buried on a back page: ironically, political attempts to attack the ToE have resulted in wider publicity for its triumphs.Mixing science and faith is hazardous to science but even more so to faith: the all-or-nothing literalist/creationist viewpoint can only be rocked again and again by such discoveries.Having great confidence in the ToE, and being aware that fossil finding is becoming increasingly predictive and fruitful, I've long been curious about what the creationist response will be to such slam-dunk fossil proofs.From what I've seen so far, it will range from complete denial to assertions that God made both kinds and kind-chimeras, a Dr. Frankenstein kind of deity...Anyway, here's to Tiktaalik--boyo, we hardly knew ye.

{The material of the second quote box is interesting, but is VERY OFF-TOPIC. Perhaps Omni could find a nice intelligent design topic home for that information. - Adminnemooseus}Heh. Don't worry, Brad, there are always newly-created gaps in which to take shelter--though I gather John Morris feels Tiktaalik is very fishy, indeed.From today's WSJ "Science Journal": There will always be new gaps. {The material of the second quote box is interesting, but is VERY OFF-TOPIC. Perhaps Omni could find a nice intelligent design topic home for that information. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-07-2006 01:43 PM+/- bE: 'Sho nuff, Adminnemooseus--though the second portion seemed relevant to what is exposed by the light that Tikaalik sheds on evolutionary transitions, since it concerned a molecular transition and analogous denials. The WSJ reporter thought it relevant, and so did I.But I will defer and delete.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 04-07-2006 03:00 PMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 04-07-2006 03:02 PM