Or the NYT wouldn't be so out-of its gourd gleeful over the discovery of a new fish fossil . Who is editing the Times these days anyway, Spo'tin' Life? Although purportedly about a fossil, the subtext of the story seems to be, "The things you is li'able to read in the Bible, 'Tain't necessarily so." Second sentence of the story:
In addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils are widely seen by scientists as a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who hold a literal biblical view on the origins and development of life.
And while the actual scientists involved didn't want to get into a debate about evolution, The Times' reporter practically does a jig:
While Dr. Shubin's team played down the fossil's significance in the raging debate over Darwinian theory, which is opposed mainly by some conservative Christians in the United States, other scientists were not so reticent. They said this should undercut the creationists' argument that there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind.
Wow. One fossil explains us all:
on closer examination, scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but exhibiting changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — a predecessor thus of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.
NYT editors no doubt. No wonder we have the strong biological urge to wrap our fish in newspaper! No wonder we reap huge health benefits from Omega-3-fish oils! No wonder Jimmy Hoffa sleeps with the fishes. It's a unified theory of existence!
Can you say: leap of faith? Blind, unquestioning faith? I'm saving this one in my "Jimmy's World" file.
UPDATE: This guy doesn't quite speak for me, but his reaction is funny. And he's exactly right about that little word "anticipate." Curtsy to Hugh Hewitt.
