[Renfield]

This issue has been gnawing at me for years. I intuitively realized the inadequacy of the theory of Natural Selection in explaining the miracle of creation, but I could not communicate as eloquently as Mr. Stark. This is an elegant article.

[balrog666]

What a diaper-load. Anybody that uses the term "Darwinist" is by definition a Creationist.

[RobFromGa]

mark for later

[perfect stranger]

www.caseforacreator.com

[dubyagee]

.

[siunevada]

There is a reason we still call it a theory after all these years. The evidence is still pretty cluttered and when you get down to the basics of biology and chemistry the beginning seems statistically impossible. Not just unlikely but impossible.

One of the things I find curious is that for natural selection to work at the present time both nucleic acids and proteins must be present. Theoretically, they must have 'evolved' at the same time since they function interdependently, not independently.

[tallhappy]

Rather, from the very start it primarily has been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science.

These so-called "crevo" threads serve as a perfect example of the extra-scientific nature of the "debate".

[razoroccam]

Why couldn't God have created the Big Bang, as well as evolution? This "either or" logic doesn't hold water, specially for those who believe in a non-denominational God.

I guess it is harder for bibiophiles, as well as koranophiles, since Big Bang and evolution negate their point of view. But, in my view, it only serves to reinforce my belief in God. Who/what other force could have come up with something so fantastic?

[razoroccam]

Why couldn't God have created the Big Bang, as well as evolution? This "either or" logic doesn't hold water, specially for those who believe in a non-denominational God.

I guess it is harder for bibliophiles, as well as koranophiles, since Big Bang and evolution negate their point of view. But, in my view, it only serves to reinforce my belief in God. Who/what other force could have come up with something so fantastic?

[Ole Okie]

I've long been an admirer of Fred Hoyle. And I don't believe that Fred would declare the atomic weight of hydrogen to be 4, when it is 1.00797.

The atomic weight of helium is 4. Someone mixed these up. And the mixup does present difficulties to the creation of carbon thesis contained therein.

That said, I've bookmarked this for further study because it does have some interesting points.

[VadeRetro]

Without question, Charles Darwin would be among the most prominent biologists in history even if he hadn't written The Origin of Species in 1859. But he would not have been deified in the campaign to "enlighten" humanity. The battle over evolution is not an example of how heroic scientists have withstood the relentless persecution of religious fanatics. Rather, from the very start it primarily has been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science.

This is eloquent? This is ignorance. Darwin spent no time advocating atheism. He cited and tied together the already voluminous evidence known in his day, presenting the inescapable conclusion that the organisms of Earth are related by common descent and have varied from each other by the operation of variation and natural selection.

This favorable evidence has only exploded in volume since the 19th century. To try to refute the theory by the logical fallacy of arguing from motive (while citing no evidence even for said motive) is ridiculous.

[Tax-chick]

later

[bondserv]

Pingist!

[plain talk]

Great article. I especially liked the quote:
"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane...."
Condescension worthy of a Kerry liberal.

[Ichneumon]

I'll point out the "facts and fables" in this pap later tonight, but right now I have to run a few errands. Check back later.

[_Jim]

but as one who knows what is probably the most disreputable scientific secret of the past century: There is no plausible scientific theory of the origin of species!

Aside from the fact that *all* life shares some *really* common denominators, including elementary chemical compounds, internal cell processes, drive to reproduce, he's spot on the mark ...

</sarcasm>

[_Jim]

According to Steven Stanley, another distinguished evolutionist, doubts raised by the fossil record were "suppressed" for years.

The fact that life, all life, is able to be formed from several good handfulls of the same basic raw 'stuff'; as opposed to a quart of dog for one small four-footed fetching animal, three ounces of 'fish' for, well, a fish, or 1000 lbs of 'cow' for a Hereford seems to have escaped those who deny any possibility that life was a grand scheme from the bheginning in the mind of the creator -

- how he achieved this grand accomplishment should NOT be something to be feared.

[jennyp]

So, name a specific argument from this article that sounds particularly convincing to you. Let's see how well his arguments hold up. (In fact, I wonder if these creationist arguments have ever been refuted before? They sound so devastating, surely no evolutionist scientist or polemicist has ever been able to refute them. Even if you searched the whole, wide Internet, you'd never find refutations to these arguments anywhere.)

[VOA]

bump

[Doctor Stochastic]

The author fails to mention mutation, either from ignorance of malice. Either way, the author is not stating evolutionary theory correctly. I predict that no Creationist will criticize this author for such a failure.

But the boundaries between species are distinct and firm-...

The author neither defines "species" nor gives evidence for such a claim.

[cookcounty]

"a thoroughly ideological Darwinist like Richard Dawkins claims....."

You know Dawkins is in trouble when the best analogy he can think of is an intelligent designer (A watchmaker!) who has some limitations ( a blind watchmaker ).