22 thoughts on “By Chance or Intelligent Design”

1. Deanna, is it any wonder that the exhibits in the archeology museum were “immersed in evolution”? An overwhelming majority of credible scientists around the world believe in it based on the evidence. It should be no surprise to either of us that scripture-spouting men and women who have managed to make their way into the scientific community have not had a great enough effect to be able to change the entire scientific establishment. Evolution is still taught in schools for the same reason.

   Let me remind you that when you say: “So how can evolution by chance or accident produce this type of development? The answer is that evolution can not but an Intelligent Designer can,” you are disagreeing with most of the scientific community. And I might wonder how much you’ve actually studied the relevant fields of biology, biochemistry, and physics to be able to pit yourself against the scientific community about scientific issues.

   I hope that, if you ever plan on debating these issues, you get a better grasp on biological science than you currently seem to have. Your quote about the Big Bang is also amusing. Let me ask you, how many non-Christian or non-ID books have you actually taken the time to read on these issues? How many evolutionary biology books have you read? How many cosmology books have you studied? It appears to me that you have perhaps read a version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (and you were apparently convinced by it), and you have read maybe a few sources which are anti-evolution. How many actual scientific books have you read?

2. Landon,
   Hello, I see that you have apparently done all of your homework in the scientific world.
   First let me state that although you are right when you say that public schools have been and are teaching the philosophy of evolution, however parents are still unaware that the schools are teaching it as fact.
   Secondly, I do not have to be a scientist to understand that evolution is a naturalistic philosophy.
   My two questions
   – How is it that once pre-existing species transformed into new species and now they don’t?
   – How did the big bang theory come into existence?
   May all come to know that the God of the Bible created all things.
   Deanna

3. Deanna,

   Your position now seems to be that we should inform parents that public schools are teaching the theory of evolution as a fact, since they are generally unaware. First of all, it makes me wonder how much you’ve studied the philosophy of science, because the “fact/theory” dichotomy that you are bringing up is a very poor argument indeed. The vast majority of scientists who have studied these issues for their entire careers have come to the conclusion that evolution has and continues to occur. To the scientific community, evolution is supported by the evidence as much as any other theory. Daniel C. Dennett, on p. 60 of his book “Breaking the Spell” (recommended), says: “This is a sticking point for those who don’t yet appreciate just how well established the theory of evolution by natural selection is. According to a recent survey, only about a quarter of the population of the United States understands that evolution is about as well established as the fact that water is H2O. This embarrassing statistic requires some explanation, since other scientifically advanced nations don’t show the same pattern.”

   As you can see from this one example (only cited because I’m in the middle of reading the book presently), the scientific community is absolutely convinced of evolution based on the evidence. It might do you well to examine exactly who the dissenters are. There is no question that the overwhelming majority of people who do not believe in evolution are also Christians. What does this tell you? That there are many Christians who disagree with the scientific community about scientific matters.

   I suspect that I hit the nail on the head in regards to your (perhaps “unquestioned”) acceptance of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. While I admire Dr. William Lane Craig’s work in this field, it is also interesting to note that the vast majority of people who accept this argument as true were already theists to begin with. This should tell you something.

   Besides these side issues, I’d like to respond to your questions as well as one of your assertions. You stated: “Secondly, I do not have to be a scientist to understand that evolution is a naturalistic philosophy.” How do you explain the fact that many Christians who are actually educated in the sciences are evolutionists? Consider Francis Collins, author of “The Language of God” and the leader of the Human Genome Project. Even he believes that there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence for evolution. Michael Behe, the hero of the ID movement, believes in common descent (mankind did indeed evolve from lower species). It seems, then, that there is plenty of room for evolution with a supernatural twist, despite the fact that you seem to think evolutionists must be naturalists.

   I agree that you don’t need to be a scientist to judge the philosophical underpinnings of a scientific theory, but your post in this blog went far beyond doing that. You made an appeal to your readers to arm themselves with the knowledge to challenge Darwinism. And I’m still willing to bet that you’re an anti-evolutionist despite the fact that you’ve likely only read anti-evolution (Christian) books.

   You asked “How is it that once pre-existing species transformed into new species and now they don’t?” This seems to be based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Nobody expects an organism to give birth to an entirely different organism. Evolutionists point out that small changes from generation to generation, coupled with natural selection, amount to large changes over long periods of time. Speciation is a gradual process, not one that we would expect to see overnight. Therefore, what we actually do observe in nature (the small changes in the evolution of various species) is actually a brief cross-section of one species becoming another. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html)

   You asked: “How did the big bang theory come into existence?” I’m not sure if you’re referring to the theory itself, or the energy entailed in the Big Bang. Please explain what you mean.

4. Also check out Landon’s “facts” via http://www.orgins.org and http://www.discovery.org

   Dembski and crew might have a differing opinion. Since we all have MA’s and BA’s only, we all might gain understanding by reading each others suggested sites.

   Psalm 150,

   Roger

5. Roger,

   Thank you for the references. Do you have any responses to anything I have written, though?

6. Deanna,

   Recently, I asked an agnostic scientist friend of mine what was his major “scientific” objection to belief in God. Surprisingly, he did not quite answer the question, but said, “What really matters is the origin of how everything got here. We can talk evolution until we are blue in the face, but how did it all start?” The theory of evolution obviously cannot explain origins and it was not intended to do so. However, what happens if the origin of the universe points to a personal causal agent? Can the theory of evolution and a causal agent coincide? I am currently reading the Francis Collins book and I am interested in his view. However, if he indeed sees evolution and the Christian faith as compatible, this is called theistic evolution and it has been around awhile.

   What is good about the evolution/intelligent design debate is that it gets people to think again about origins; no matter what side they line up on.
   Solid theories will stand up to scrutiny.

   Landon,

   And I’m still willing to bet that you’re an anti-evolutionist despite the fact that you’ve likely only read anti-evolution (Christian) books.

   and

   While I admire Dr. William Lane Craig’s work in this field, it is also interesting to note that the vast majority of people who accept this argument as true were already theists to begin with. This should tell you something.

   Presuppositions are held by most people whether they are Christians or Atheists. I have found that a reasonable investigation can be done by a person on either side. I have also found that both sides can stretch the science to support their beliefs. My father once said that in a lab, if you have four scientists, you will have four interpretations of the data (a chemical engineer joke :-). Science and Philosophy are human endeavors; both can err. And you probably know as well as I do that it takes a long time for a paradigm to shift. Evolution cannot be beyond reproach (especially while we are still looking for evidence) or a road block to investigation has been established.

   I am currently reading the Daniel Dennett book “Breaking the Spell.” I cannot comment much, because I have just begun. However, I had the pleasure of hearing him debate on the book material this February in New Orleans. Apparently, he is backing the Dawkins concept of memes as being responsible for religious beliefs. A problem with this concept is that everything we believe (even the fact that we believe in anything at all) falls prey to the meme concept according to what I understand of it so far. The idea of a meme becomes merely an aggressive meme, itself, that is passed from human to human. This meme survives because it is a “fit” idea…survival of the fittest. But I will be interested in how Dennett expands on his argument in the book.

   MJ

7. MJ, please allow me to respond to your post:

   (1) In regards to the question your agnostic scientist friend asked (“how did it all start?”), I think I might be able to shed some much-needed light on the issue. First of all, you are somewhat correct that the theory of evolution cannot explain origins. If we are talking about the beginning of all of existence (if there was a beginning), then evolution cannot account for such an origin. If we are talking about the origin of life via abiogenesis, then the theory of evolution can reveal quite a bit. For example, biochemists can study the evolution of increasingly complex molecular compounds in an attempt to piece together the mystery of abiogenesis. In this sense, evolution has much to tell us about origins.

   The question your friend asked might be even deeper than this, however. Perhaps he is asking the age-old question “Why does something exist rather than nothing?” I have long been convinced that this question is unanswerable by science as well as religion. So yes, a scientist will not be able to explain *why* something exists (except to say that *something* must exist), but this does not mean the answer is to be found in the religious discourse either.

   (2) You asked “what happens if the origin of the universe points to a personal causal agent?” I assume that you are also using the Kalam Cosmological Argument to come to this conclusion. Does your own version differ from William Lane Craig’s version?

   (3) You said “I have found that a reasonable investigation can be done by a person on either side.” That’s very optimistic. However, I’m not so sure. I have begun to believe that Christian theists who decide to study the evidence for their beliefs are often times not willing to change their beliefs if the evidence doesn’t line up for them. They will tend to read only anti-evolution books, and will usually allow too much certitude for bad arguments. Even the silly people over at AiG have said that whatever scientific evidence we uncover, it must fit the things we know based on Genesis. If not, our ancient mythology takes precedent over science. I’m not accusing all Christians of doing this, since I know that you are one who takes the time to read the literature from both camps, but I notice this trend for the most part.

   (4) You said “And you probably know as well as I do that it takes a long time for a paradigm to shift.” Perhaps it does take a long time for the scientific community to switch paradigms. Thomas Kuhn might point to the paradigm shift in astronomy that began with Copernicus (1543) and lasted several decades. People used to believe that the earth was the center of the universe (for mostly religious reasons), but science eventually prevailed (much to the dismay of the church), showing that our planet revolves around the sun. This example shows that, for the most part, paradigm shifts are slowed down if dogmas are allowed to take precedence over the evidence. Look at the paradigm shifts that Einstein brought about. These didn’t take nearly as long because Einstein’s evidence was compelling, and nobody had theological dogmas invested in, say, Newton’s theory of gravity.

   In the case of Creationism (ID) vs. evolution, we have to carefully examine which direction the paradigm is shifting. When I was first introduced to the work of Thomas Kuhn, I immediately thought of the (possible) paradigm shift from evolution to ID. However, the more I’ve studied the issues, the more I’m beginning to believe that this is not the case at all. It seems to me as if the paradigm shifted from ancient mythology to Darwinian Evolution a long time ago (at least within the scientific community). The resurgence of Creationism seems to be the dogmatic adherence to old beliefs that is slowing the paradigm shift down for the rest of society. A vast majority of people in this country believe in Jesus Christ as the savior of humanity, so they have a vested interest in retaining the mythology of the Old Testament.

   I assume that you believe the paradigm is shifting in the other direction. However, you have to wonder why the scientific community is nearly unanimous on the issue, despite the objections of the new Christian scientists who argue for ID.

8. Landon seems to enjoy reading and writing fiction. Assumptions seem to be the way of thinking for this blogger. No wonder evolution is so eagerly defended. Thank you for bringing up this subject and I will be watching.

   Watchmen

9. Watchmen,

   Thank you for your empty criticism of my posts. Perhaps next time you can add some intellectual content to your critique. The conversations seem to be much more fruitful when all parties are participating fairly, which means it doesn’t help to have somebody like you who simply asserts that another person’s posts are false without providing any evidence in support. Think about it and get back to me with your real concerns.

10. Landon,
    You’re welcome. My real concern is that parents, who believe in the truth of Scripture and raise their children to seek God, the Creator of all things, are being blindsided (which means: to surprise unpleasantly) by the fiction of evolution that is taught in our public school systems as fact.
    By the way, I do not agree with your definition of “participating fairly”.

    I’m sorry my post upset you, I did not know you were the authority on content for this blog.

    Again, thank you Two Chix for allowing me to express my opinion.
    Watchmen

11. Watchmen,

    I did not claim to be the authority on the content of the posts in this blog, so don’t confuse yourself into thinking that. You are, of course, fair to express your opinion on this blog, as MJ and Deanna have made it quite clear that comments are welcome (which is, incidentally, why I am commenting on this particular issue in this blog).

    My concern with your post, however, was legitimate. Here we have been discussing actual issues with the intention of learning from one another. And along you come, asserting that what I’ve been writing is purely “fiction,” and that assumptions dominate my mental faculties. This type of critique is unnecessary and dishonest, since you provided no evidence for either of your baseless claims.

    You must understand that genuine conversations require genuinely interested participants. It seems that you are not interested in the conversation, but rather, only interested in dishonestly attempting to undermine my position by making false assertions. No, nobody will reprimand you for this. But you shouldn’t be surprised that I’m calling you out on it and pointing out that you haven’t added anything worthwhile to the conversation. If you don’t want to join the conversation in a legitimate manner, don’t be surprised when everybody stops listening to you.

    It is nice to see that you did add one comment (unsupported by any evidence, obviously) in your second post. You’re concerned about Christian parents being undermined by scientific theories. You did, of course, call evolution a “fiction,” which is expected from somebody who believes Genesis. I have already pointed out in one of my previous posts that the reason public schools have been teaching evolution rather than ID or Creationism has to do with two things: (1) Separation of church and state, and, most importantly, (2) The evidence for evolution is accepted by an enormous majority of scientists. By your reckoning, we should teach the theories in public schools that the Christians believe in as opposed to the theories that the scientists believe in.

    Many evangelical Christians simply school their children from home, so they can include lessons from the Good Book (after all, what better to interject into your morning math lesson than a selection from a magic book which was inspired by the creator of the universe himself?!). Surely there are many Christians who teach their children Creation Science/ID at home because of the threat of evolution, but you must wonder: If evolution really is in trouble as a scientific theory, why aren’t there just as many secular parents taking their children out of public schools because of the “fiction” of evolution? Isn’t it convenient that the people who are teaching their children Intelligent Design as a “fact” were mostly already Christians to begin with? I have commented about this much more in my previous posts. Do you have anything to add?

12. Landon,

    Abiogensis: this is an area of science that has a long way to go. Francis Collins says in The Language of God, “No current hypothesis comes close to explaining how in the space of a mere 150 million years, the prebiotic environment that existed on Earth gave rise to life. That is not to say that reasonable hypotheses have not been put forward, but their statistical probability of accounting for the development of life still seems remote.” 1

    As far as asking “why” something exists: If we do not understand the why of a mechanism, do we fully understand the mechanism? Maybe not necessarily just “why,” but also “for what purpose”? I believe this adds to the understanding of the functionality of the mechanism, whether it is a person, an earthworm, or the universe.

    I think the trend you are noticing with Christians may be the same trend I notice with Atheists…we notice those who are most vocal. That is why I say that an informed investigation can be done on both sides of the evolution/creation debate. I have met many honest investigators of truth who are believers, non-believers, believers who believe in a no-more-than-10,000-year-old earth, believers who believe in a billions-of-years-old earth, evolutionists who are not entirely convinced of the theory’s complete veracity, and evolutionists who just laugh at any investigation into theory’s veracity. Unfortunately, well-informed, truth-seeking, educated opinions do not catch most of the attention of the media. (What fun would that be?) Instead, the average American gets whatever is sensationalized and will lead people to either watch a certain network, buy a certain product (newspapers and magazines), or endorse a certain politician. At least, that appears to be the trend. Okay, where I was going with this….. so it may be true that you hear/see many theists who are regurgitating what is the “hot topic” for decade, but there are many theists who are highly capable of looking at the information objectively. To say otherwise, puts theists and atheists into “worldview boxes” they are unable to escape and sounds vaguely like “everything we know is a matter of interpretation as filtered through our worldview.” I do not agree with the philosophical underpinnings of this idea….this concept lets people off the hook for knowing why they believe what they believe. “An unexamined life is not worth living.” – Socrates
    All I am saying about paradigms is that it really does take a long time for them to shift; no matter which way they are going. If I remember right, it is somewhere along the lines of about 100 years, but I do not have a reference on that for you right now. My referencing paradigms was to say that we should not rule out a theory, whether it points towards an atheism or theism. Sometimes these inferences are made by people, not by the actual data involved. If there are good arguments for either theory, put them to the test. Calling the theory “silly”, “religious”, or whatever else, to me, isn’t science: the pursuit of knowledge and truth. It is an opinion. Also, using a single theory as propaganda to say all of our theistic dreams have been realized, is also not an honest pursuit of knowledge. It’s putting all your eggs in one basket.

    What needs to be investigated are things like “reverse evolution” 2 of DNA and/or messenger RNA. Can these units evolve? Also, William Dembski’s Complexity-Specification Criterion. Intelligence is signaled through contingency, complexity, and specification. 3 This is how the SETI program hopes to find intelligent life somewhere else in the universe. The have to rule out what merely appears to be designed and what is actually designed to realize communication by an intelligent being. So if this kind of criterion is being used to scope the skies for signs of intelligent communication, what is inherently wrong with using it to scope the life dwelling on earth for the same purpose? Or will I just be written off as an Orwell-esque wishful sci-fi ‘fantasizer’? 🙂

    In The Language of God, Collins states, “Based on these and other observations, physicists are in agreement that the universe began as an infinitely dense, dimensionless point of energy. The laws of physics break down at this circumstance, referred to as a ‘singularity.’” 4 I have studied the other models: steady state, oscillating universe, vacuum fluctuation, chaotic inflation, quantum gravity, and ekpyrotic models. The point of singularity has the most evidence (rate of recession of galaxies, cosmological background radiation, expansion of the universe, etc) and appears to be the most endorsed. The Kalam Cosmological Argument puts forth a hypothesis that can account for a point of singularity. William Lane Craig takes the argument one step further and says that it accounts for a personal causal agent. His argument may be able to do so, but may need to be a part of a cumulative case to accomplish this goal. What do you have to offer on origins?

    Update on the book-reading: I am still in “The Language of God” and want to finish it out before going on with “Breaking the Spell.” I am also reading the Carrier article you sent awhile back. I’ll let you know when I’ve posted on it.

    Thanks,
    MJ

    1Collins, Francis. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York, Free Press: 2006. pg.90.

    2 A term taken from Daniel Dennett.

    3 Dembski, William. Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology. Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press: 1999. pg. 128.

    4 Collins. Francis. Pg. 65.

13. MJ,

    (1) I do agree with you that abiogenesis is currently a difficult issue within the scientific community. This is, of course, the nature of scientific progress. Physicists are still struggling to understand quantum mechanics and the Theory of Everything. Further research should shed light on all of these issues.

    (2) In regards to “why” something exists, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Looking back at what I actually wrote, I can see how it could be easily misinterpreted. Science is spectacular at answering the question “why does this or that exist?” The point I was making, however, was that science (and religion) cannot answer the question “why is there something rather than nothing?”

    (3) I agree with your comments about the intellectual necessity of transcending our “worldview boxes.” I also agree that people from both sides of the debate can honestly evaluate the evidence. I commend you for being one of those people. And although I may have been too harsh on Deanna, my purpose in responding to her post was to point out that she’s in no position to argue against Darwinian Evolution if she hasn’t even read the literature from the other side (especially when “the other side” is the scientific community!). Furthermore, I agree with your comment about letting each theory have a fair hearing.

    (4) In regards to paradigm shifts, I’ve already pointed out that some take longer than others. Some can be quite rapid, and some can be slowed down by dogmas of some sort. In my opinion, religious dogma has slowed down the paradigm shift from Genesis Creationism to evolution (at least for the lay person–not for the scientifically educated).

    (5)Thanks for the information about cosmology and Kalam. I intend to do a comprehensive study of Dr. Craig’s argument sometime in the near future (within a year). If I’m still unconvinced, I’ll work on drafting a detailed counter-argument. As of now, I’m not convinced of the argument. I suppose you are? You should make a post about it at some point and we can discuss it further.

    By the way, I intend to read Collins’ book at some point, and I’m rather pleased so far with Dennett’s book.

14. Landon,

    I appreciate that you seem to be well educated in scientific theories and yet obviously remain open to change your view given enough evidence to do so. I am wondering however, based on the following statements:

    “However, you have to wonder why the scientific community is nearly unanimous on the issue, despite the objections of the new Christian scientists who argue for ID.
    (2) The evidence for evolution is accepted by an enormous majority of scientists. By your reckoning, we should teach the theories in public schools that the Christians believe in as opposed to the theories that the scientists believe in.”

    am I understanding you correctly when you are assuming a theory to be true based on the evidence that science has come up with AND how many people believe it to be factual?

    If you are as open as you say you are, would you find fault in allowing both “theories”, ID and evolution to be taught in the classroom?

15. I have just a few things to touch on.

    First of all, evolution is an observable fact(see fruit flies, or bird flu). The “theory” of evolution explains how it happens. I find that so many people don’t seem to understand this. A theory in a scientific sense is quite different from what one would normally consider a theory. A scientific theory is a “testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.”

    Secondly, to say that there is no evidence of evolution is of course incorrect. It is actually quite funny that you would say that, when there has been more evidence gathered for evolution than any other scientific theory.

    Also, evolution isn’t pure chance or an accident by your definition. Here is an analogy I like:
    “Consider this: suppose I have a stream of sand that has lots of grain of all different shapes and sizes, and I pour it slowly into a tea ball, while shaking the tea ball steadily. After a while of this, when I look in the tea ball, I’ll find something interesting: nearly all the sand that remains is sand that just happens to be shaped or sized so that it can’t fall through the holes in the tea ball.
    Now, how would you describe this process? Would you say that the sand grains in the tea ball realized their dire situation and ‘adapted’ to their environment so that they wouldn’t fall through, changing their shapes and sizes by sheer force of will? Or would you say that the sand grains which happened to be of such shape and size so as to be effective at remaining in their environment simply remained in their environment, while the others didn’t?”

    Mr. W

16. Mr. W
    Welcome. First it is true that there were observable tests on fruit flies since the tiny fly reaches sexual maturity in only five days, however the fly did not mutate into another new type of insect. The results were only a bigger wing, different colored eyes or a fuzzy back but the fly was still a fly. The point is not whether there has been testing in the area of evolution, but instead that it is a theory that is believed on faith not factual evidence.

    Secondly, there is evidence of testing the theories and variations within a certain species, but a fly is still a fly and observable change is limited.

    I would like to leave you with an analogy I like:
    “Suppose a fish evolves lungs. What happens then? Does it move to the next evolutionary stage? Of course not. It drowns. Francis Schaeffer.
    An organism is an integrated system, and any isolated change in the system is more likely to be harmful than helpful. If a fish’s gills were to begin mutating into a set of lungs, it would be a disaster, not an advantage. The only way to turn a fish into a land-dwelling animal is to transform it all at once.”
    Lastly, evolution is a theory that is founded on a lack of evidence, with an origin that exists from nothing and is believed in by faith.

    Thanks,
    Deanna

    1. Colson, Chuck, How Now Shall We Live

17. Mr. W,

    Secondly, to say that there is no evidence of evolution is of course incorrect. It is actually quite funny that you would say that, when there has been more evidence gathered for evolution than any other scientific theory.

    I must disagree with you here unless you can give some comparative evidence for this statement. Ie. the General Theory of Relativity versus the theory of evolution or Newton’s theory of gravity versus the theory of evolution.

    I do agree with your statment on the understanding of the term ‘theory.’ A biologist would recognize this term as a working theory, not just a proposition.

    One problem I have with evolution as an observable fact: The term evolution is too broad a spectrum to say that it has completely been observed. I have not witnessed a transitional form. I can witness the changes in several generations of fruit flies. However, the changes I would witness are not changes that show development of characteristics strange to the fruit fly DNA.

    And I still have the problem of origin.

    Thanks,

    MJ

18. It was interesting to hear that you are reading Dennett’s book. It sounds, however, like you are focusing on the extremes. For many Christians (I won’t try to guess whether we are the majority or not), evolution and Christianity are no more incompatible that heliocentrism and Christianity (“But then the sun didn’t stand still…”) or genetics and Christianity (“But then it is all happening through chemistry and natural processes rather than God literally knitting us together in our mother’s womb…”) or any other field of science. I’d strongly recommend reading something by someone who is a Christian and yet thinks that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that this is not a problem for Christianity. The best I’ve found so far is Kenneth Miller’s _Finding Darwin’s God_.

    http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com

19. James,

    Thank you for the book recommendation! As I said in a previous post, I am reading Francis Collins’ “The Language of God.” Collins believes that Christianity and evolution are compatible. His arguments seem to center around the similarity of all DNA, which he says points to common ancestry. Collins uses an example of a human chromosome (#2?) that appears to have been a fusing together of two chimpanzee chromosomes. However, he does not offer an explanation of how/why this could have happened or if it is even possible. Perhaps this will come later in the book; I am stalled at halfway due to a summer course.

    Actually, I have to read a representative author from every “side” of the creation/evolution/design debates for one of my courses. I am currently focusing on the Dawkins/Dennett naturalistic atheism side of evolution. So your observation is correct along those lines.

    Thanks for taking time to comment and for the link to your blog. I see that you are no stranger to apologetic subjects! In fact, you have some very interesting looking articles and have tackled some difficult areas.

    MJ

20. I only really want to argue on one point here – can we PLEASE come to the agreement that although you don’t believe life evolved by chance… nobody else does either. Evolution contains one random component (genetic mutation) and a non-random component (natural selection). We see evolution all the time (for example black peppered moth populations increasing over white ones when tree bark becomes blackened by pollution, or studies of bacteria and viruses that evolve quickly due to their high rate of reproduction)

21. “We see evolution all the time.”

    Could you give me more examples than the moth and the virus? Or send me to a cite where I could find at least 100’s of examples? So I can verify the “all the time” part of this statement.

    Thank you,
    MJ

22. Landon,

    I am laughing in my chair as I read your assumptions and strong critique of issues you have no intention of "learning from". You seem to have the mind of one who believes speaking in intelligent terms makes you intelligent. All I've seen from you are discouraging words with no basis to relativity.
    You're acting as though you're speaking down to people for their beliefs and then criticizing them for what you believe is ignorance. The only ignorant person on this blog is you.
    I would bet you even spell checked your statements before posting them 😉

    Siah

Comments are closed.