Questions for evolutionists

[Gavin]

Two of the strongest objections, in my opinion, to macro-evolution by natural selection are (1) the absence of transitional life forms in the fossil record (an objection anticipated and validated by Darwin himself), and (2) the problem of "leaps" which must be necessary to explain the diversity of life in the world today. For example, the leap from non-life to life, the leap from water creatures with gills to land creatures with lungs, the leap from land creatures with reptilian or mammalian lungs to flying creatures avian lungs, feathers, and wings, and the leap from simple to irreducibly complex systems in living creatures, such as the cell, or the human eye. I use the term "leap" to describe these changes because it seems to me that it is difficult to postulate that they occured according to the principles of Darwinian gradualism. It also seems to me that the fossil testimony affirms "leaps" in the development of organisms (e.g., the Cambrian explosion).

I would be interested to see how those who affirm macro-evolution by natural selection would respond to these objections to the theory.

[rogue06]

There are several good clear examples of transitionals in the fossil record (including Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx), though the record isn't nearly a robust as one would hope for. So to say that there is a "absence of transitional life forms in the fossil record" is incorrect.

[M.Talkingsworth]

Two of the strongest objections, in my opinion, to macro-evolution by natural selection are (1) the absence of transitional life forms in the fossil record (an objection anticipated and validated by Darwin himself), and (2) the problem of "leaps" which must be necessary to explain the diversity of life in the world today. For example, the leap from non-life to life, the leap from water creatures with gills to land creatures with lungs, the leap from land creatures with reptilian or mammalian lungs to flying creatures avian lungs, feathers, and wings, and the leap from simple to irreducibly complex systems in living creatures, such as the cell, or the human eye. I use the term "leap" to describe these changes because it seems to me that it is difficult to postulate that they occured according to the principles of Darwinian gradualism. It also seems to me that the fossil testimony affirms "leaps" in the development of organisms (e.g., the Cambrian explosion).

I would be interested to see how those who affirm macro-evolution by natural selection would respond to these objections to the theory.

I echo Rogue's answer regarding the fossil record. There are fossils which demonstrate traits one would expect from a "transitional life form". I recommend that you look into the matter on some reputable websites which explain evolution. In my opinion, the fossil record goes a lot further in supporting evolutionary concepts than strict 7-day creationist ones.

The matter of macro evolution is indeed a difficult one to get your mind around. If you only focus on what researchers have not found, then it is unlikely you will have a fair understanding of the case for evolution. I recommend that you research some of the strong evidence that has been found for evolution. Some of the most convincing evidence I have found is the DNA evidence between species. Also evidence of adaptations occurring naturally today are good evidence. Undoubtedly there are holes in the theory. It is probable that people will never be able to explain everything. It is important to realize that this does not make something false. To use an example: no one can completely explain many mysteries of God. Despite this we still believe because of other strong evidence in favor of God's existence. If we waited until all the kinks were worked out with the "theory of God" then we would never believe. I think it is similar with evolution.

Also, technically the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the transition from non-life to life. Natural Selection deals only with living organisms. The transition of non-life to life is called abiogenesis. There is interesting research being done on that, although I am doubtful that the mystery will ever be unraveled.

In the end, evolution is still counter-intuitive to me and I have my reservations, but I also recognize that there are solid evidence-based foundations for the idea. It is wise to become knowledgeable on the matter since it seems to pop up in so many thelogical discussions these days.

God Bless,

Matt

[Gavin]

rogue,

There are several good clear examples of transitionals in the fossil record (including Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx), though the record isn't nearly a robust as one would hope for. So to say that there is a "absence of transitional life forms in the fossil record" is incorrect.

I am not convinced that these are good examples of transitional life forms, but even if they are, they are not enough to remove the problem for Darwinism. Darwin said that, according to his theory, there should be scores of transitional forms, at least many more than there are static forms. He said it was a valid critique of his argument, but that later discoveries would vindicate him. They haven't. If evolution is true, why isn't the fossil record teeming with transitional forms? Positing two examples does not remove the weight and burden of the problem.

[Gavin]

hi matt,

I echo Rogue's answer regarding the fossil record. There are fossils which demonstrate traits one would expect from a "transitional life form". I recommend that you look into the matter on some reputable websites which explain evolution. In my opinion, the fossil record goes a lot further in supporting evolutionary concepts than strict 7-day creationist ones.

See above.

The matter of macro evolution is indeed a difficult one to get your mind around. If you only focus on what researchers have not found, then it is unlikely you will have a fair understanding of the case for evolution. I recommend that you research some of the strong evidence that has been found for evolution. Some of the most convincing evidence I have found is the DNA evidence between species.

This is not conclusive unless it is assumed that a Designer/Creator could not or would not use similar materials in designing/creating different organisms.

Also evidence of adaptations occurring naturally today are good evidence.

This is good evidence of micro-evolution, change within a species, which everyone agrees upon, but it is not good evidence of macro-evolution, change from one species to another. We do not observe macro-evolution in the world today.

Undoubtedly there are holes in the theory. It is probable that people will never be able to explain everything. It is important to realize that this does not make something false. To use an example: no one can completely explain many mysteries of God. Despite this we still believe because of other strong evidence in favor of God's existence. If we waited until all the kinks were worked out with the "theory of God" then we would never believe. I think it is similar with evolution.

It seems to me that the problem of the fossil record and the problem of "leaps" are not merely kinks in a workable theory, but contradictons in a troubled theory.

Also, technically the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the transition from non-life to life. Natural Selection deals only with living organisms. The transition of non-life to life is called abiogenesis. There is interesting research being done on that, although I am doubtful that the mystery will ever be unraveled.

It is necessary to assume that somehow non-life evolved into life in order for there to be organisms to evolve. The boundary markers of where abiogenesis ends and evolution begins are not entirely clear, but they both deal with the same problem of how life is the way it currently is in the world.

In my opinion, it takes greater faith to believe that everything came from nothing, by accident, than to posit intelligent design.

In the end, evolution is still counter-intuitive to me and I have my reservations, but I also recognize that there are solid evidence-based foundations for the idea. It is wise to become knowledgeable on the matter since it seems to pop up in so many thelogical discussions these days.

Thanks for you thoughts! I agree with you that its an important topic, but I am more skeptical than you regarding its plausibility. I would be interested to hear what positive evidence for evolution you think there is.


Gavin

[rogue06]

I am not convinced that these are good examples of transitional life forms, but even if they are, they are not enough to remove the problem for Darwinism. Darwin said that, according to his theory, there should be scores of transitional forms, at least many more than there are static forms. He said it was a valid critique of his argument, but that later discoveries would vindicate him. They haven't. If evolution is true, why isn't the fossil record teeming with transitional forms? Positing two examples does not remove the weight and burden of the problem.

Well now that we've got past the claim that there is an "absence of transitional life forms in the fossil record" to there are too few. Agreed. While there are many more examples of clearly distinguishable transitionals in the fossil record than the two I listed, there aren't nearly as many as we hoped for. Today, unlike Darwin, most "evolutionists" don't put as much emphasis in the fossil record as they do DNA and genetic testing which has shown much clearer linkage than looking at the bones has. But again, that does not mean we have no fossil evidence in support of the ToE. Far from it. Recent finds in China (as well as Africa, Spain and South America) have brought us more feathered "dino-birds" so Archie is no longer alone there. The evolutionary history of horses is well attested to in the fossil record. Horse evolution illustrates that evolution is not a linear, straight-line progression, but is much messier – sort of like biology itself. Discoveries of transitionals for whales since the mid 1980s has shown clear evidence that they evolved from land animals. Here is a wbsite worth checking out for some more information even though it is now 10 years out of date:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ by Kathleen Hunt

One thing to keep in mind though is that it may be very easy to miss spotting some transitionals in the fossil record because only the most obvious differences can be seen by examining bones. For example, experts today are hard pressed to distinguish between a skull from a tiger and a skull from a lion. While they are both big cats, I think we can agree that they are very different. And that difference is far more than just appearance. Tigers are solitary hunters prefering to strike from ambush. Lions prefer to belong to a pride which usually go out together and run down prey. Yet, looking at the skulls it takes an expert to tell them apart. I imagine it would be even more of a challenge with animals you've never seen alive and the bones of which are often damaged and incomplete.

[M.Talkingsworth]

Hi Gavin,

I am not trying to convince you that evolution is true. I am skeptical of it as well. I find it counter intuitive in several areas. Despite this, I recognize that there is good evidence that it could be correct. My intent here is not to convince you of evolution, but to acquaint you with some of the good evidence in its favor.

I am going to let Rogue discuss the fossil record with you just so we do not end up saying the same things.

This is not conclusive unless it is assumed that a Designer/Creator could not or would not use similar materials in designing/creating different organisms.

By this way of thinking, there will never be any "conclusive" evidence. There are no things which could happen "naturally" which one could not attribute to a designer/creator. For someone who is unwilling to be convinced, no amount of evidence will be conclusive. In any case, it is not a problem, because I am content to expose you to some bits of information and let you make up your own mind about them. I will start with the DNA evidence and then go from there. But first, I want to address some other ways of thinking which may hamper progress.

This is good evidence of micro-evolution, change within a species, which everyone agrees upon, but it is not good evidence of macro-evolution, change from one species to another. We do not observe macro-evolution in the world today.

The theory of evolution is based on the concept of multiple micro-evolutions. There really is no macro evolution. That is, there is never a case where there are drastic changes in one or two generations. There are just gradual changes and over vast periods of time species imperceptibly drift into different things. It would be impossible to observe any sort of macro-evolution, according to the TOE, since the micro-evolutions take a *long* time to pile up and produce change. It is not logical to reject the TOE because you do not see observations which the TOE does not predict. To restate:

1) The TOE does not predict "macro" changes in the span of time which would be observable by humans, even in the last hundred years of scientific study. The TOE predicts that we would observe micro-evolutions in our lifespans or the last coulple hundred of years.

2) You have said that you reject the TOE because you do not see macro evolution.

Do you see why this is not logical? I am not trying to be nasty or rude, but to gently show how that argument does not work. I have found myself in very uncomfortable situations due to incorrect thinking and I really want to keep you from having those experiences if possible. Nothing is worse than having a laughing smilie used against you when you know you are wrong! Believe me! :)

It is necessary to assume that somehow non-life evolved into life in order for there to be organisms to evolve. The boundary markers of where abiogenesis ends and evolution begins are not entirely clear, but they both deal with the same problem of how life is the way it currently is in the world.

You are absolutely right that if God did not create, then at some point simple atoms have to "evolve" into molecules, which must "evolve" into complex molecules, and so forth. I just wanted to share that when most people speak of evolution proper, the question of abiogenesis does not enter the matter.

In my opinion, it takes greater faith to believe that everything came from nothing, by accident, than to posit intelligent design.

I think it is impossible for everything to come from nothing. Something has most likely always existed. The question is, what is the nature of that something. You and I think that it is God as described in the Bible and Christian tradition. Atheists think it is just the universe.

Thanks for you thoughts! I agree with you that its an important topic, but I am more skeptical than you regarding its plausibility. I would be interested to hear what positive evidence for evolution you think there is.

Believe me, I am plenty skeptical. I just recognize that there is compelling evidence out there. I will share some of it with you.



Here is an interesting article. To summarize, this is an example of a random mutation which produced a protein which has "anti-freeze" properties. Scientists have been able to determine how old the gene is and it coincides with estimates of the time of an old ice age, an environment which would have selected for the gene.

You can find it here: [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/8/3811

Another interesting bit of information is the great diversity of hemoglobins (the protein which binds oxygen in red blood cells) found within the human species. There are 700 variations in human hemoglobin. Most of these variaions are non-pathological and work well.

source:http://globin.cse.psu.edu/html/huism...nts/intro.html

Here is an interesting exerpt from an article. A rudimentary summary: Humans cannot survive without vitamin C. They will get scurvy and die. This is because the gene responsible for producing vitamin C in most animals is defective in humans. The same defective gene is found in chimpanzees and is defective in the same way.

Guinea pigs and primates, including humans, get sick unless they consume ascorbic acid in their diet. For humans and guinea pigs, ascorbic acid is thus a vitamin (vitamin C), while most other species can synthesize their own ascorbic acid and thus do not require this molecule in their diet. The reason humans and guinea pigs cannot manufacture their own ascorbic acid is that they lack a functional gene encoding the enzyme protein known as L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase (GLO), which is required for synthesizing ascorbic acid. In most mammals functional GLO genes are present, inherited - according to the evolutionary hypothesis - from a functional GLO gene in a common ancestor of mammals. According to this view, GLO gene copies in the human and guinea pig lineages were inactivated by mutations. Presumably this occurred separately in guinea pig and primate ancestors whose natural diets were so rich in ascorbic acid that the absence of GLO enzyme activity was not a disadvantage — it did not cause selective pressure against the defective gene.

Molecular geneticists who examine DNA sequences from an evolutionary perspective know that large gene deletions are rare, so scientists expected that non-functional mutant GLO gene copies — known as “pseudogenes” — might still be present in primates and guinea pigs as relics of the functional ancestral gene. In contrast, Creationists believe that humans and guinea pigs were each created independently of all other species and must have been “designed” to function without GLO. If this were true, these two species would not be expected to carry a defective copy of the GLO gene. In fact, GLO pseudogenes have been detected in both guinea pigs and humans (Nishikimi et al. J Biol Chem 267: 21967, 1992; Nishikimi et al. J Biol Chem 269:13685, 1994), consistent with the evolutionary view; presumably, related pseudogenes also exist in non-human primates that require dietary vitamin C.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

The conclusion of the article is particularly good.

Do the shared functionless sequences described here prove that humans and apes had a common ancestor? Actually, no scientific knowledge is based on unassailable proof of the sort that supports mathematical theorems, so the creationist complaint that evolution has "never been proven" simply reveals a gross misunderstanding of the nature of science. Rather, science advances by the accumulation of clues sought by persistent detectives (scientists) who try to derive logical and unbiased deductions from these clues. Like a jury presented with these clues, we can try to arrive at the most likely verdict even though we recognize that our facts are incomplete; there are no living "witnesses" to the eons of evolution, so we must make the best deductions we can from the clues at hand. In "the case of the shared functionless sequences," an unbiased jury would surely conclude that copying from a shared ancestor was the most likely explanation, consistent with the evolutionary interpretation. This conclusion would follow the logic of actual copyright law in which shared errors are accepted as evidence of copying. The strong acceptance of this conclusion among scientists is indicated by the fact that no alternative explanation has been proposed in the scientific literature to explain the widespread sharing of so many functionless sequences between species. Thus, if we are to accept the evidence of science, it would appear that common descent of disparate species from a shared ancestor ("macroevolution" in the creationist terminology) has actually occurred.

As new examples of shared pseudogenes and retroposons are discovered by molecular geneticists, this information will join the immense body of clues from other disciplines which, collectively, already provide overwhelming evidence for evolution. Despite this impressive evidence, no scientist believes that all the answers are in on evolution or that our current understanding of pseudogenes and retroposons is immune from revision in light of future knowledge. Indeed, scientists in laboratories throughout the world are continuing to probe the genes of various species, comparing the molecular genetics data with the fossil record and refining our knowledge of the history of our species.

Ok, so that was *A LOT* of stuff. I am not sure how much knowledge you have of things genetic, thus my rudimentary summaries. If these things are outside of your area of expertise, let me know and I will explain them in more layman's terms.

I hope this helps and God bless,

Matt

[zorathruster]

There are actually current examples of macro-evolution in progress. One is along the ridge line in the San Andreaus Valley. A newt, which is kind of like a lizzard and salamander exists along both the east and west side of a mountain ridge. The intermediary elements are interbreedable. The newt can interbreed down one side or the other to the southern point where it can go either way. At the top of the mountain ridge, the differing newts cannot interbreed.

The second example is the common gull and the black wing tip gull which do not interbreed in the British Isles. However, as you round the globe the common gull can interbreed with other gulls that begin to resemble more and more the black wing tip gull, and eventually the two closely similar gulls interbreed which by the time you get back to the British Isles is the black wing tip gull. Once there, they do not interbreed.

The definition of speciation is the ability or inability to interbreed. A new species is formed when the orginal species cannot interbreed with a subsequent species. Intermediary elements constitute the missing elements you seek. You don't actually have to go to the fossil record to find the intermediaries and then guess as to whether they interbreed or not, there are plenty of live examples that are apparent here on the earth today.

[Tladatsi]

1) Gradualism is contrary to Darwinism. In the forward to the second edition to the "Origin of the Species" Darwin makes a particular effort to reject a gradualist reading of his book. Rather he argues, evolution moves in a "saltatory" [sic] fashion, i.e. "proceeding by abrupt movements". Environmental change often occurs abruptly so adaption must occur abruptly as well.

2) Fossil preservation is haphazard at best. The odds of recovering an exact skeletal transitional is unlikely, although it does happen. Horses are an excellent example where numerous transitional skeletons have been found.

3) Most evolution occurs in soft tissues (as there are a great many more such tissues as compared with bones). Soft tissues are rarely preserved. So finding a true "transitional" organism is generally limited to those with transitional skeletons, but one element of overall evolutionary change.

4) Nonetheless, there is the platypus! The ideal transitional animal, half repltile, half mammal in both hard and soft tissues. If you are creationist arguing fro the lack of transitional species then you must "Fear the Platypus" (see the link below)

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ad.php?t=92047

Two of the strongest objections, in my opinion, to macro-evolution by natural selection are (1) the absence of transitional life forms in the fossil record (an objection anticipated and validated by Darwin himself), and (2) the problem of "leaps" which must be necessary to explain the diversity of life in the world today. For example, the leap from non-life to life, the leap from water creatures with gills to land creatures with lungs, the leap from land creatures with reptilian or mammalian lungs to flying creatures avian lungs, feathers, and wings, and the leap from simple to irreducibly complex systems in living creatures, such as the cell, or the human eye. I use the term "leap" to describe these changes because it seems to me that it is difficult to postulate that they occured according to the principles of Darwinian gradualism. It also seems to me that the fossil testimony affirms "leaps" in the development of organisms (e.g., the Cambrian explosion).

I would be interested to see how those who affirm macro-evolution by natural selection would respond to these objections to the theory.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Don't forget, Gavin, evolutionists turn lead into gold in their basements on a regular basis.

[ScottM]

rogue,



I am not convinced that these are good examples of transitional life forms, but even if they are, they are not enough to remove the problem for Darwinism. Darwin said that, according to his theory, there should be scores of transitional forms, at least many more than there are static forms. He said it was a valid critique of his argument, but that later discoveries would vindicate him. They haven't. If evolution is true, why isn't the fossil record teeming with transitional forms? Positing two examples does not remove the weight and burden of the problem.

Gavin: What sort of fossil would you expect to see (or want to see) that you would accept as a transitional fossil? You've already been offered some examples that you reject. To reject what the scientific world as a whole accepts as an example of a transitional fossil (and then to say there are none at all) strongly suggests that you have a standard of some kind that the scientific world doesn't meet. What is your standard for accepting that a particular example of a transitional fossil is, indeed, transitional? Or, are you unwilling to accept anything as a valid example of a transitional fossil?

I'd like to point out something you must always consider when you claim evolution didn't happen: If it didn't happen, the scientific world as a whole would have abandoned the idea ages ago. Think about this. Science is a self-correcting venture. The theory of evolution is the dominant, unifying theory in biology, and it affects (and is affected by) other branches of science. The untold number of observations that scientists make and have made about our natural world (and that they continue to make every day) lead scientists around the world to accept that life on this planet has evolved over a very long time. The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that adequately explains those myriad observations. A scientific hypothesis that doesn't explain the scientific observations does not get elevated to the status of scientific theory. It is considered an invalid hypothesis, and, thus, has no chance of becoming an accepted theory. The theory of evolution is and remains the dominant theory of the biological sciences because of its tremendous explanatory power. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a geneticist, correctly observed that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. If the evidence for evolution wasn't compelling, the theory that attempts to explain evolution would be equally uncompelling, and scientists would have rejected it. It's just that simple.

I have observed throughout many discussions about evolution that people who don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory often reject the theory. I recommend that before you utter another word against the validity of the theory of evolution that you do some basic research to try to understand why the scientific world as a whole accepts that life on planet earth evolved over hundreds of millions of years, and that the theory of evolution is the best explanation of how and why it happened. Understand that among scientists, there is no debate about whether evolution happened; it is considered settled fact. If there is debate it is about the timing and mechanisms of evolution. The physical evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and this is something you need to understand.

Respectfully

Scott

[MooseOnTheLoose]

I am not convinced that these are good examples of transitional life forms, but even if they are, they are not enough to remove the problem for Darwinism. Darwin said that, according to his theory, there should be scores of transitional forms, at least many more than there are static forms. He said it was a valid critique of his argument, but that later discoveries would vindicate him. They haven't. If evolution is true, why isn't the fossil record teeming with transitional forms? Positing two examples does not remove the weight and burden of the problem. Gavin: What sort of fossil would you expect to see (or want to see) that you would accept as a transitional fossil? You've already been offered some examples that you reject. To reject what the scientific world as a whole accepts as an example of a transitional fossil (and then to say there are none at all) strongly suggests that you have a standard of some kind that the scientific world doesn't meet. What is your standard for accepting that a particular example of a transitional fossil is, indeed, transitional? Or, are you unwilling to accept anything as a valid example of a transitional fossil?
I'd like to point out something you must always consider when you claim evolution didn't happen: If it didn't happen, the scientific world as a whole would have abandoned the idea ages ago. Think about this. Science is a self-correcting venture. The theory of evolution is the dominant, unifying theory in biology, and it affects (and is affected by) other branches of science. The untold number of observations that scientists make and have made about our natural world (and that they continue to make every day) lead scientists around the world to accept that life on this planet has evolved over a very long time. The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that adequately explains those myriad observations. A scientific hypothesis that doesn't explain the scientific observations does not get elevated to the status of scientific theory. It is considered an invalid hypothesis, and, thus, has no chance of becoming an accepted theory. The theory of evolution is and remains the dominant theory of the biological sciences because of its tremendous explanatory power. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a geneticist, correctly observed that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. If the evidence for evolution wasn't compelling, the theory that attempts to explain evolution would be equally uncompelling, and scientists would have rejected it. It's just that simple.
I have observed throughout many discussions about evolution that people who don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory often reject the theory. I recommend that before you utter another word against the validity of the theory of evolution that you do some basic research to try to understand why the scientific world as a whole accepts that life on planet earth evolved over hundreds of millions of years, and that the theory of evolution is the best explanation of how and why it happened. Understand that among scientists, there is no debate about whether evolution happened; it is considered settled fact. If there is debate it is about the timing and mechanisms of evolution. The physical evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and this is something you need to understand.

The scientific community will resist abandoning evolution because the alternative is to accept divine intervention, which falls outside the remit of natural law and therefore outside of science itself. Science is indeed self-correcting, which is why cracks regularly appear in the complex mythology evolutionists have built up around their worldview. This is the reason why Darwinism is is in such poor health - unfortunately Richard Dawkins won't turn off the life support. Evolution's 'tremendous explanatory power' remains embedded in assumptions, conjecture and speculation. I have observed throughout many discussions about evolution that people who perfectly understand the basics of evolutionary theory often reject the theory. Now that open-minded, qualified people are looking outside of the accepted evolutionary model, biology is perhaps beginning to make more sense than ever before. I recommend that you do some basic research in order to understand why this is happening, and why your statement concerning 'the scientific world as a whole' is incorrect, as is your assumption concerning scientists' views in general. It's that simple

[M.Talkingsworth]

The scientific community will resist abandoning evolution because the alternative is to accept divine intervention, which falls outside the remit of natural law and therefore outside of science itself. Science is indeed self-correcting, which is why cracks regularly appear in the complex mythology evolutionists have built up around their worldview. This is the reason why Darwinism is is in such poor health - unfortunately Richard Dawkins won't turn off the life support. Evolution's 'tremendous explanatory power' remains embedded in assumptions, conjecture and speculation. I have observed throughout many discussions about evolution that people who perfectly understand the basics of evolutionary theory often reject the theory. Now that open-minded, qualified people are looking outside of the accepted evolutionary model, biology is perhaps beginning to make more sense than ever before. I recommend that you do some basic research in order to understand why this is happening, and why your statement concerning 'the scientific world as a whole' is incorrect, as is your assumption concerning scientists' views in general. It's that simple

Hi Moose,

I am always interested in the latest dispatches from the origins investigation, so if you could point me to some good info regarding contemporary researchers who find problems with evolutionary theory I would be interested in reading about them.

I would like to challenge your notion that the scientific community as a whole is unwilling to accept the idea of divine intervention and I also would like to challenge the idea that "Divine intervention" necessarily has to be "unnatural".

Firstly there are theists who are scientists. I believe that those who believe in God make up 10-30% of the scientific community. One noteworthy example is Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God. I think that this segment of the scientific community would gladly accept alternative explanations to evolution if those explanations seemed most likely given our current state of knowledge. This, however, is not what I have observed. I also think that you are selling many scientists short by assuming that they are staunchly opposed to accepting the possibility of God. Surely there are those out there with an agenda, but there are also undoubtedly a reasonable portion who are quite neutral.

Secondly, If God is the author of nature and nature flows from his actions, would not his actions be, by very nature, natural? If all natural substances, forces, events, and laws are the direct result of God's action then how can we call the actions of God "outside of nature". It seems more correct to identify the actions of God as "the natural way of things". The bible indicates that creation is sustained through the actions of God. It indicates that God sends the rain and causes the harvest to grow. These are natural events. I think that it is quite reasonable to classify the workings of God as "natural".

I suppose an exception to this way of thinking would be the seemingly "unnatural" miracles recounted in the Bible, but maybe those only seem unnatural because of how we have defined "natural".

Regardless, what I really am interested in is to see some papers written by researchers who are challenging evolution on the basis of observation of the natural world.

Thanks,

Matt

[MooseOnTheLoose]

My main difficulty with Scott's post is the assertion that the evolutionary question has been finally settled. I find the notion that anything can be ‘settled’ in science counter productive as something can always come along and turn the most firmly held idea on its head. I’m reminded of the collective gasp that went up from the science community when the Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the cornerstones of physics, was apparently disproved in the laboratory, with enormous implications for nanotechnology.

My other problem with the post is the use of loaded phrases i.e. ‘do basic research’, ‘it’s that simple’, ‘you need to understand this’ which I parodied in my initial response. This echoes the “Of course I’m right and you’re simply uneducated,” sort of thinking that Richard Dawkins uses to such ill effect (and which is still much in evidence on tweb). Please bear in mind that science is defined as ‘an opened-minded study’, and almost every branch of the discipline enjoys its share of dissidents.

Of course, Creationists can prove just as closed-minded in their attitudes. I'd gleefully knock everyone's heads together if it meant we could get on with some unbiased debate.

I am always interested in the latest dispatches from the origins investigation, so if you could point me to some good info regarding contemporary researchers who find problems with evolutionary theory I would be interested in reading about them.

Simply using Google will point you to some of the bigger sites dealing with all sides of the debate (Theologyweb is of course one). I enjoy trolling through as many as I can. Keywords such as "evolution" and "creationism," will obviously get you started, though brace yourself for the number of hits! Twebbers will no doubt come up with their own recommendations. Have fun and remember - keep an open mind!

[Red Wine]

I also like to keep an open mind. To posit thousands (not millions) of fossils in each sequence, is being very VERY generous to the theory (gradualism, not punctuated). My attention would be piqued if I could see this, honestly I would consider the all too familiar claim if this were so, by reason of a solid majority of the accredited scientific community, based on actual fossils, and not on partial bones or skeletons. This is just in all fairness to the theory, and to Darwin. IMO, he seemed to expect to find these large chains, given time of course.

As yet I'm unconvinced.