From: SCOTT FAUST                     Posted: 16 Sep 94  22:50

> and Robert Gentry. Both had impeccable credentials and were
> praised by their collegues. The latter worked at Los Alamos
> laboratory, and when he raised the issue of pleo chroic halos in
> basement rocks(as evidence of fiat creation), he was dismissed.

 Significantly you do not say -why- Gentry was dismissed.  His grant
 expired.  It was not renewed, not due to some nefarious conspiracy,
 but (principally, as I understand) due to the fact that the
 original justification for the research did not bear out.  It was
 thought that the presence and analysis of radio halos might aid in
 the location and evaluation of uranium deposits.

 Gentry's papers were published in _Science_ (over a period of
 several years as I recall).  But Gentry's interpretation of his
 halos as indicating instantaeous creation of the rocks which
 contained them was simply not tenable in light of the available
 evidence.  Indeed, the fact that Gentry's halo containing
 "primordial" rocks intruded and/or crosscut rocks of sedimentary
 origin (some even containing fossils) decisively falsified his
 claim.

 A refusal to publish scientific interpretations which are
 demonstrably inviable (even if Gentry had ever submitted them) is
 hardly "censorship".

> I am rather suprised you would cite Archeoptryx. This fossil has
> fallen into disrepute of late since more birdlike forms were
> found in earlier strata than Archaeoptryx.

 Why would this (assuming it to be the case) cause _Archaeopteryx_
 to fall into "disrepute"?  It may show that _A._ wasn't in a
 -direct- line of descent between more recent birds and some
 reptile.  But _A._ would still (and does still) maintain its status
 as a striking intermediate between birds and reptiles.  If the
 actual transition had occured well before its time, _A._ could
 still quite sensibly represent a relatively unmodified lineage
 stemming therefrom.  And would still demonstrate the viability of
 forms bridging the gap between the two classes.

 The other problem is that these other claimed birds are -not-
 indisputably "more birdlike" than _Archaeoteryx_.  (Last I checked
 the literature, in any case.)  There is a great deal of controversy
 about their reconstruction (remains, of Protoavis for instance,
 having been fragmentary, scattered and broken) and taxonomic
 status.

> (I will get the articles on this, I don't have them in front of
> me...)

 I would be mildly surprised if you have ever read them, unless the
 articles are magazine or newspaper reports printed in advance of
 more detailed analysis.  "Creation scientists" are well known for
 citing newspaper articles, preliminary studies, or outdated
 research, and then studiously ignoring the results of subsequent
 studies.  (The young earth arguments involving "moon dust" and the
 "shrinking sun" come to mind.)

 * SLMR 2.1a * Evolution: It's not just a theory, it's a way of life.
--- FMail/386 0.98a
 * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924  (1:202/212)



Message #138   [Evolutionary Theory Discussion]