Replies

> Hardly unbiased work.

One of the most telling bits for me was this gem:

"While Darwin's theory seems to explain how small-scale evolutionary changes or limited natural selection processes could operate within certain species, it fails miserably to describe, as Robert Koons observes, how such functional forms and processes "came to be there in the first place" and, as Edward Sisson notes, it "tells us nothing about when and how the genes we see today first came into existence." "

So, Darwinian evolutionary theory does not explain how genes came to be. Well, duh. It also doesn't explain continental drift or cosmogenesis. Darwinian evolutionary theory explains wha tthe repurcussions of gene *mutation* and variation have in a world of natural selection; that it doesn't explain how DNA came to be is not a black mark against it. That the author says it is is a black mark against *him.*

The Theory Of Relativity explains what sort of effects you can expect if you accelerate to near the speed of light... but it doesn't explain how you got that fast in the first place, or why the speed of light is what it is. Newton and Kepler explained the operation and effects of gravity and motion, but did not explain how mass creates gravity.

You might be missing the point here. Darwinists have always claimed that life started from "primordial soup." Unfortunately, they have thuys far only been able to successfully show micro-evolution. Some work has been done on the Macro level, but there is still plenty of controversy over the results and interpretation thereof.

The Darwinists have a tough row to hoe, since they must show how information evolved, overcome the problems inherent in irreducible complexity and resolve the inherent contradictions between punctuated equilibrium (which is not universally accepted even amongst evolutionists) and Darwinism. Oh, and they have to do all of this without using ID tools, since such tools introduce an unremoveable pro-ID bias into their results.

OTOH, many IDers do believe in evolution, just not in the religion thereof that passes for science today.