[JCEccles]

I believe it's far beyond reasonable dispute that natural selection plays an important role in how animal species develop over time to better fit environmental niches. An important role, not the decisive role. This apparent reversibility is evidence that some other agent or factor plays the decisive role in selecting the fixed changes that separate the species from one another.

At the same time, it seems entirely unwieldy and unreasonable to posit that ad hoc divine intervention or intelligent design is the decisive factor.

There are other possibilities but the exalted priesthood of Darwin, preaching its atheism-based faith claims ex cathedra from the public schools and court rooms of this nation, has effectively hijacked the power of the state to stifle honest inquiry and science.

Thus, the study of life on this planet remains mired in late 19th Century thinking of a mechanistic clockwork nature.

Someday biological sciences will have to honestly seek to understand the role of intelligence (especially the most neglected component: the context of the observer/interpreter) and make space for information theory in the paradigm of evolution. Great 20th Century minds, including those of Schroedinger and Shannon, have defined a path of inquiry that Darwinists refuse to walk for fear of losing their religion and the power to force it on the rest of us.

[JCEccles]

Bump

[ahayes]

Most Dramatic Post Today Placemarker

[ml1954]

I believe it's far beyond reasonable dispute that natural selection plays an important role in how animal species develop over time to better fit environmental niches.

I think you believe wrongly. BTW, what's your hypothesis about how 'species develop over time to better fit environmental niches'?