Administrator2
New Member
ERIC B
I thought this would especially be of concern to Helen:
Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
This struck me at a magazine stand.
Some of these things I find hard to answer, as this debate was never my strong point. (I was reared in it and it was very hard to come to faith). But right away I can see:
"benefits". But this presupposes a higher cosmic principle that lies outside of the evolving matter itself guiding it to what WE now experience as "useful". Who says that light was made to be "seen", for instance?
They also discusse the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which was supposed to be one of our strongest cases.
I just was shocked at this blunt statement in the title. While creationists have done a lot of ranting and casting into Hell the evolutionists (Like Henry Morris and other ol-line creationists), the evolutionists themselves have usually responded more passively.
I thought this would especially be of concern to Helen:
Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
This struck me at a magazine stand.
Some of these things I find hard to answer, as this debate was never my strong point. (I was reared in it and it was very hard to come to faith). But right away I can see:
These two rely on "natural selection" which strives to "desirability"/"adaptability" and8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance. Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)
"benefits". But this presupposes a higher cosmic principle that lies outside of the evolving matter itself guiding it to what WE now experience as "useful". Who says that light was made to be "seen", for instance?
They also discusse the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which was supposed to be one of our strongest cases.
This one they're right on. Too many of us do not understand the theory and make assumptions like one animal "turning into" another.6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor. The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
I just was shocked at this blunt statement in the title. While creationists have done a lot of ranting and casting into Hell the evolutionists (Like Henry Morris and other ol-line creationists), the evolutionists themselves have usually responded more passively.