My post titled "What are Darwinists Afraid Of?" has had more comments than any other post I have done. One commentator, Ed Darrell, has posted a few interesting "Pro Darwin" comments. See the article and comments here.
I liked my reply so much I thought I would re post it. That is one benefit of being the Blogger!
Repy to Ed: Many thanks to Ed for his well written reply to my comments in reply to his comments. Did you follow that?
I won't reply to each of his statements as I agree with much of what he writes. Sort of! The problem I have is that I totally agree that evolution can and has been observed often in nature. But there are TWO TYPES of EVOLUTION. There is micro evolution - change within species - and there is macro evolution - one species becoming another species.
The first has been observed. The first has been utilized in medicine and agriculture as he says. My problem is not with micro evolution at all. It makes perfect sense and is readily proven that it happened and still happens today! My problem is logically taking that observation and making the jump to MACRO EVOLUTION. I am not aware of any evidence or observation showing that has happened or is happening. The total lack of "intermediate" species in the fossil record are very telling. Also, the sudden appearance of species in the fossil record is totally unpredicted by evolution. Smarter people than I could go on and on about the huge holes in the theory of Macro Evolution.
I think that this is the main problem in a discussion about "evolution". One needs to make sure we know which type of evolution we are talking about! Id'ers, get accused of being stupid because they supposedly don't accept the concept of micro evolution when they readily do.
As to the lack of "published" work from ID'ers, scientific publications are controlled by Darwinists and they are not going to allow anything written by an ID'er to be published so that can continue to use the argument that ID is not scientific because they have never been published! That circular argument works in medicine too!
I also fail to follow Ed's argument that somehow it is anti-God to believe in ID and not in evolution. Clearly the basis of belief for every athiest I have ever talked to has been Evolution and not Creation! It seems rare to find Christians (or any other faith for that matter) who believe in a Creator but also believe that creation happened from NOTHING and totally randomly by chance.
I also don't like the tendency for evolutionists to attack ID'ers personally. I have read things written by people like Dembski and Behe and it is hard for me to believe that they are stupid people with an evil agenda. They seem extremely smart and their arguments compelling.
One could argue as Ed does, that this is because I am simply ignorant and have not been properly taught what evolution really is. The fact is, I have read things from evolutionists and I have gone through the obligatory evolution classes both in High School and College. In those classes I found myself saying, "that is all there is?" "That is what evolution is?" I wanted to know where the beef was.
I don't think the reason that only 22% of Americans believe in Evolution is that 78% of them are just too stupid or ignorant! I think that evolutionists have to do a better job explaining how what is observed, happened totally from NOTHING and totally randomly. That is the huge problem that they have it seems to me.
What is observed appears to be extraordinarily well designed! Nothing that we use or work with in everyday experience came into being from nothing or by chance. Our experience readily teaches us that everything worthwhile has been designed by someone.
