Evolution is wishful thinking

JEFF 2004-05-31 08:46:33

"Eddie" wrote in message
news:LYmdnaFp8srpMifd4p2dnA@adelphia.com...

>
> Don't blindly accept the unfounded "theory of evolution" as fact just

because it

> was forced to be printed in our school's textbooks. The facts are obvious.

Actually, I don't find the facts to be so "obvious." However, when you look
at all of them, they do overwhelmingly support the fact that evolution
occurred.

> Judge for yourself how absurd this theory really is.

I am not sure what, exactly, you are calling the "theory of evolution."

> Eddie
>
> http://www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in_evolution.htm
>

The site is bullshit. First, it describes "the problem." The ideas behind
evolution were not funded by people who were athiests. Rather, they were
trying to put their observations about the life God created in a scientific
framework.

"The theory" section is also inaccurate. It implies that Charles Darwin's
major insites came from examining fossils. His insights came from trying to
understand the animals that he saw and how they were related on his trip
aboard the Beagle (he started out as the captain's dinner companion). It
states that natural selection promotes features of increasing complexity.
This is incorrect. Natural selection promotes features that work best for
survival, regardless of complexity.

The page claims that no gradual transitions from one form of life to the
next have been found. This is incorrect. There are many intemediate states
between many, many different life forms that have been found. It also
states that if theory of evolution were true, there ALWAYS would be a smooth
transition from one life form to another. This is incorrect. The theory of
evolution does not promise smooth transitions. Stransitions are rapid.

The section of Darwin's view on the gaps of the fossil record is total
nonsense. Darwin was aware of the fossil record, but the fossil record was
not very well developed during Darwin's time. But the fossil record was not
a major driving force for Darwin.

On the section about mutations, it implies that mutations can never be
helpful. This, too, is nonsense. Human mutations have been shown to be
helpful. For example, the mutation that causes cystic fibrosis helps humans
survive cholera. The mutation that causes sickle-cell anemia and thalasemias
also help protect against malaria.

The section of Punctuated Equilibrium is also incorrect. For example, it
states that rapid evolution is indistinguishable from special creation. This
is incorrect. There is ALWAYS a clear relationship between the newly evolved
organism and the organism from which it evolved. There is a sudden
difference in function or anatomy, but it is always clear that this
difference was evolved from a closely related animal. With special creation,
this connection would be lost. Why would God always choose special creation
to create organisms that look and behave like the organisms that are already
there except for one or a few things?

In the section that talks about how natural selection is mindless, it asks
how helpful would half an elye be? The answer is very helpful, as Charles
Darwin answered. For example, without a lens, half an eye would still help
an animal orient it body towards light and know whether it is night or day.

In the section about whether evolution is occuring right now, it states that
survival cannot be seen. What? Let's see: Animal alive and had kids --
survived. Died: didn't survive. Creationists should collectively slap their
heads with their palms for this stupidity.

The part about Neanderthal Man is really about science. Virchow (the father
of pathology) may have stated that Neanderthal man was really like modern
man, except that he had rickets. however, medical science has evolved since
then. For example, it is now known that rickets won't have that great an
effect and explain all of the differences between neanderthal man and modern
man.

The page talks about the forgery "piltdown man." It states that after
piltdown man was discovered to be a fake, piltdown man was removed from the
human family tree. Well, DOH, what do you expect? Scientists to put things
that they know are false in textbooks?

The answer to the question "Why have wet all been taught the theory of
evolution as fact? The answer, because it is fact.

The most laugable statement: "Creationists dispute the underlying theories
of natural selection, breeding, mutations and other facts above not because
of their religious beliefs, but because no scientific research or laboratory
observations over the past 150 years have shown these individual
sub-theories can possibly be." This is incorrect. Creationists discredit
these scientific findings because they disagree with the Bible.

Jeff