The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Skeptic Online ^ | May 2006 | David Brin

[balrog666]

Intelligent Design is only one of many “alternatives” to Darwinian evolution

There is rich irony in how the present battle over Creationism v. Darwinism has taken shape, and especially the ways that this round differs from previous episodes. A clue to both the recent success — and the eventual collapse — of “Intelligent Design” can be found in its name, and in the new tactics that are being used to support its incorporation into school curricula. In what must be taken as sincere flattery, these tactics appear to acknowledge just how deeply the inner lessons of science have pervaded modern culture.

Intelligent Design (ID) pays tribute to its rival, by demanding to be recognized as a direct and “scientific” competitor with the Theory of Evolution. Unlike the Creationists of 20 years ago, proponents of ID no longer refer to biblical passages. Instead, they invoke skepticism and cite alleged faulty evidence as reasons to teach students alternatives to evolution.

True, they produce little or no evidence to support their own position. ID promoters barely try to undermine evolution as a vast and sophisticated model of the world, supported by millions of tested and interlocking facts. At the level that they are fighting, none of that matters. Their target is the millions of onlookers and voters, for whom the battle is as emotional and symbolic as it ever was.

What has changed is the armory of symbols and ideas being used. Proponents of Intelligent Design now appeal to notions that are far more a part of the lexicon of science than religion, notably openness to criticism, fair play, and respect for the contingent nature of truth.

These concepts proved successful in helping our civilization to thrive, not only in science, but markets, democracy and a myriad other modern processes. Indeed, they have been incorporated into the moral foundations held by average citizens, of all parties and creeds. Hence, the New Creationists have adapted and learned to base their arguments upon these same principles. One might paraphrase the new position, that has been expressed by President Bush and many others, as follows:

What do evolutionists have to fear? Are they so worried about competition and criticism that they must censor what bright students are allowed to hear? Let all sides present their evidence and students will decide for themselves!

One has to appreciate not only irony, but an implied tribute to the scientific enlightenment, when we realize that openness to criticism, fair play, and respect for the contingent nature of truth are now the main justifications set forward by those who still do not fully accept science. Some of those promoting a fundamentalist- religious agenda now appeal to principles they once fiercely resisted. (In fairness, some religions helped to promote these concepts.) Perhaps they find it a tactically useful maneuver.

It’s an impressive one. And it has allowed them to steal a march. While scientists and their supporters try to fight back with judicious reasoning and mountains of evidence, a certain fraction of the population perceives only smug professors, fighting to protect their turf — authority figures trying to squelch brave underdogs before they can compete. Image matters. And this self-portrayal — as champions of open debate, standing up to stodgy authorities — has worked well for the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID). For now.

Yet, I believe they have made a mistake. By basing their offensive on core notions of fair play and completeness, ID promoters have employed a clever short-term tactic, but have incurred a long-term strategic liability. Because, their grand conceptual error is in believing that their incantation of Intelligent Design is the only alternative to Darwinian evolution.

If students deserve to weigh ID against natural selection, then why not also expose them to…

1. Guided Evolution

This is the deist compromise most commonly held by thousands — possibly millions — of working scientists who want to reconcile science and faith. Yes, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and our earliest ancestors emerged from a stew of amino acids that also led to crabs, monkeys and slime molds who are all distant relatives. Still, a creative force may have been behind the Big Bang, and especially the selection of some finely tuned physical constants, whose narrow balance appears to make the evolution of life possible, maybe even inevitable. Likewise, such a force may have given frequent or occasional nudges of subtle guidance to evolution, all along, as part of a Divine Plan.

There is one advantage — and drawback — to this notion (depending on your perspective): it is compatible with everything we see around us — all the evidence we’ve accumulated — and it is utterly impossible to prove or disprove. Not only does this let many scientists continue both to pray and do research, but it has allowed the Catholic Church and many other religious organizations to accept (at long last) evolution as fact, with relatively good grace.

2. Intelligent Design of Intelligent Designers (IDOID)

Most Judeo-Christian sects dislike speculating about possible origins of the Creator. But not all avoid the topic. Mormons, for example, hold that the God of this universe — who created humanity (or at least guided our evolution) — was once Himself a mortal being who was created by a previous God in a prior universe or context.

One can imagine someone applying the very same logic that Intelligent Design promoters have used.

There is no way that such a fantastic entity as God could have simply erupted out of nothing. Such order and magnificence could not possibly have self-organized out of chaos. Only intelligence can truly create order, especially order of such a supreme nature.

Oh, certainly there are theological arguments that have been around since Augustine to try and quell such thoughts, arguing in favor of ex nihilio or timeless pre-existence, or threatening punishment for even asking the question. But that’s the point! Any effort to raise these rebuttals will:

1. make this a matter of theology (something the ID people have strenuously avoided). 2. smack as an attempt to quash other ideas, flying against the very same principles of fair play and completeness that ID proponents have used to prop up this whole effort.

IDOID will have to be let in, or the whole program must collapse under howling derision and accusations of hypocrisy.

3. Evolution of Intelligent Designers

Yes, you read me right. Recent advances in cosmology have led some of the world’s leading cosmologists, such as Syracuse University’s Lee Smolin, to suggest that each time a large black hole forms (and our universe contains many) it serves as an “egg” for the creation of an entirely new “baby universe” that detaches from ours completely, beginning an independent existence in some non-causally connected region of false vacuum. Out of this collapsing black hole arises a new cosmos, perhaps with its own subsequent Big Bang and expansion, including the formation of stars, planets, etc. Smolin further posits that our own universe may have come about that way, and so did its “parent” cosmos, and so on, backward through countless cycles of hyper-time.

Moreover, in a leap of highly original logic, Smolin went on to persuasively argue that each new universe might be slightly better adapted than its ancestor. Adapted for what? Why, to create more black holes — the eggs — needed for reproducing more universes.

Up to this point we have a more sophisticated and vastly larger-scale version of what Richard Dawkins called the evolution of evolvability. But Lee Smolin takes it farther still, contending that, zillions of cycles of increasingly sophisticated universes would lead to some that inherit just the right physical constants and boundary conditions.

Conditions that enable life to form. And then intelligence … and then…

Well, now it’s our turn to take things even farther than Smolin did. Any advocate of completeness would have to extend this evolutionary process beyond achieving mere sapience like ours, all the way to producing intelligence so potent that it can then start performing acts of creation on its own, manipulating and using black holes to fashion universes to specific design.

In other words, there might be an intelligent designer of this world … who nevertheless came into being as a result of evolution.

Sound a little newfangled and contrived? So do all new ideas! And yet, no one can deny that it covers a legitimate portion of idea space. And since “weighing the evidence” is to be left to students, well, shouldn’t they be exposed to this idea too? Again, the principles now used by proponents of ID — fair play and completeness — may turn around and bite them.

Which brings us to some of the classics.

4. Cycles of Creation

Perhaps the whole thing does not have a clear-cut beginning or end, but rolls along like a wheel? That certainly would allow enough macro-time for everything and anything to happen. Interestingly, the cyclical notion opens up infinite time for both evolution and intelligent designers … though not of any kind that will please ID promoters. Shall Hindu gurus and Mayan priest kings step up and demand equal time for their theories of creation cycles? How can you stop them, once the principle is established that every hypothesis deserves equal treatment in the schools, allowing students to hear and weigh any notion that claims to explain the world? 5. Panspermia

This one is venerable and quite old within the scientific community, which posits that life on Earth may have been seeded from elsewhere in the cosmos. Panspermia was trotted out for the “Scopes II” trial in the 1980s, when Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinge were among the few first-rank scientists to openly disbelieve the standard Origins model — the one that posits life appeared independently out of nonliving chemicals in Earth’s early oceans. Their calculations (since then refuted) suggested that it would take hundreds of oceans and many times the age of the Earth for random chemistry to achieve a workable, living cell.

Alas for the Creationists of that day, Hoyle and Wickramasinge did not turn out to be useful as friendly experts, because their alternative offered no comfort to the biblical Genesis story. They pointed out that our galaxy probably contains a whole lot more than a few hundred Earth oceans. Multiplying the age of the Milky Way times many billions of possible planets — and comets too — they readily conceded that random chance could make successful cells, eventually, on one world or another. (Or, possibly, in the liquid interiors of trillions of newborn comets.) All it would take then are asteroid impacts ejecting hardy cells into the void for life to then spread gradually throughout the cosmos. Perhaps it might even be done deliberately, once a single lucky source world achieved intelligence through … well … evolution. (Needless to say, Creationists found Hoyle & Wickramasinge a big disappointment.)

So far, we have amassed quite a list of legitimate competitors … that is, if Intelligent Design is one. Now a cautionary pause. Some alternative theories that I have left out include satirical pseudo-religions, like one recent internet fad attributing creation to something called the “Flying Spaghetti Monster.” These humorous jibes have a place, but their blows do not land on-target. They miss the twin pillars of completeness and fair play, upon which promoters of Intelligent Design have based their attack against secular-modernist science. By erasing all theological details, they hoped to eliminate any vulnerabilities arising from those details. Indeed, since the Spaghetti Monster is purported to be an Intelligent Designer, they can even chuckle and welcome it into the fold, knowing that it will win no real converts.

Not so for the items listed here. Each of these concepts — adding to idea-space completeness and deserving fair play — implies a dangerous competitor for Intelligent Design, a competitor that may seduce at least a few students into its sphere of influence. This undermines the implicit goal of ID, which is to proselytize a fundamentalist/literalist interpretation of the Christian Bible.

There are other possibilities, and I am sure readers could continue adding to the list, long after I am done, such as…

* We’re living in a simulation… * We’ve been resurrected at the Omega Point… * It’s all in your imagination … and so on.

I doubt that the promoters of Intelligent Design really want to see a day come when every biology teacher says: “Okay, you’ve heard from Darwin. Now we’ll spend a week on each of the following: intelligent design, guided evolution, intelligent design of intelligent designers, evolution of intelligent designers, the Hindu cycle of karma, the Mayan yuga cycle, panspermia, the Universe as a simulation…” and so on.

Each of these viewpoints can muster support from philosophers and even some modern physicists, and can gather as much supporting evidence as ID. In any case they are all equally defensible as concepts. And only censoring bullies would prevent students from hearing them and exercising their sovereign right to decide for themselves, right? Or, perhaps, they might even start private sessions after school, to study the science called … biology.

A day may come when the promoters of Intelligent Design wish they had left well enough alone.

[aNYCguy]

Time given to theories should be somewhat proportionate to the popularity of the theory adjusted.

You're suggesting that we have our primary and secondary school curriculum reflect the popularity of ideas amongst non-experts in each field?

You realize, of course, that this would require devoting a significant portion of history curricula to various popular conspiracy theories, physics curricula to various common misunderstandings, etc. etc. etc.?

That is, unless you would only hold biology to this standard of "non-expert popularity dictates curriculum," it being the field whose results you find most distasteful.

[Tom Thomson]

I believe any community should have the option to teach the Bible if the majority vote for it... As to the reliability of the Bible historically the Bible stands alone above all other ancient writings. There is more documentation for the Bible than all other ancient writings combined. You can take any writing: Socrates, Shakespeare, Plato, Confucious, Etc. and there is no comparison as to reliability.

[Dimensio]

Refer to Post# 98.

I believe that you have misunderstood my inquiry. You did not identify any lies in your posting #98, so that posting does not suffice as a reference.

[Dimensio]

There is more documentation for the Bible than all other ancient writings combined. You can take any writing: Socrates, Shakespeare, Plato, Confucious, Etc. and there is no comparison as to reliability.

Perhaps if you supported your claims with facts, rather than just asserthing them, they would carry credibility. Also, it would be helpful for your claims to actually be consistent with reality. Note that you made a number of claims that are not so consistent in your post #77, wherein you attacked a number of strawman and suggested a number of incorrect implications regarding both Intelligent Design and the theory of evolution.

[Tom Thomson]

Your statement did not say anything... what is my false premise??? What is my strawman???

Evolution has not been proven in any lab... It has not been proven in the fossil record... It does not have the numbers in the laws of probability... Evolution is pure unadulterated speculation with specious scientific sounding jargon. Nothing as been proven other than there is limited adaptability within species. Do I believe in the old earth concept??? Yes, there is proof! However, the actual age is open for speculation; but, even at the outside (13 billion years) that time is a drop in the ocean compared to the time needed for such complexity to evolve without intelligent hands-on manipulation.

Incidentally, in 13 billion years uranium would no longer be radio-active based on "scientific" evidence of half-life decay. Evolutionist keep up the mantra that evolution is scientific. If this is the case, then they should bring out the scientific evidence... lab records and fossil records!

[aNYCguy]

To believe in evolution is less believable than believing I can win a lottery everyday for the rest of my life.

Allow me to expand on this, Tom, if I may. I have calculated the probability that you will win a lottery ticket every day for the rest of your life, and I have found it to be extremely slim.

I plan to let the worldwide community of biologists know that their field has just been revolutionized by Tom Thomson, who has declared that the validity of the foundational theory is even less likely.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

If you are referring to the fact that Biblical creationism has been accepted as fact for a certain period of time in human history, I should inform you that the age of a claim has no bearing on the truth value of the claim.

===================================================================================

You should inform me? What is your impetus for such evangelism?

Truth? Depends on your definition of truth. We all know that truth, or at least man's understanding of it, cannot be absolute if man is still evolving. But then, individual perspective and relativity are one in the same. What is truth? What difference does it make to an evolutionist? It's all relative anyway. Absolute truth would have to originate outside man's perspective, and anything less than that is just perspective. Yours, mine, and Hitler's view of truth are then of equal weight.

To discount the Biblical account of creationism, the Bible itself must be determined to be a non-historical, or at the very least, an unreliable historical document. Attributing the Bible as mere myth and folklore is at variance with a wide body of scholarly study and research to the contrary. (Ah..no, I won't provide a detailed reference list; try Google.) Christianity is, and has always been a religion of faith based on historical evidence. No Christ = no Christianity. No fulfillment of prophecy = no revelation. If God did not create this world, man, and everything in it as the Bible has claimed, then the Bible is a lie and a false "revelation". In fact, if God has not revealed Himself to man, man certainly will not unveil God by himself, unless of course man becomes like God. And of course, if God cannot control the delivery and veracity of his own revelation, what sort of god is that?

So, for you to declare unequivocally state that "age of a claim has no bearing on the truth value of the claim" and then connect it with the Bible is clearly dagger pointed at the heart of historicChristianity (i.e. not the fake existential stuff). Your rhetorical question regarding the historicity of Christianity and Creation implies that such a notion is novel news to you. "Christianity? Creationism? Historical? Bah, then ignorant primitive." No, you are not that ignorant, and yes, it is a pejorative statement, framed in a nice, "tolerant", open-mind sort of way.

Again, I question your honesty and sincerity, but certainly not your evangelical intent. No amount of historical evidence can convince a person who so firmly, and a priori rejects in any notion of divine revelation, or a divinity apart from man. Juxtaposed: What level of evidence would be required for you to believe in the God of the Bible, that he created man with a specific purpose, or to overthrow entirely the notion that man is merely a genetic variance, an accident of fate, an evolved species? Whatever standard you set, I trust it will be equivocal or unattainable. Otherwise, your faith might be at risk.

You have your faith, and I have mine. Mine is informed by historical fact; yours by an "incomplete" geological record. Yours leads to a pit in the ground after death; mine to eternity. See you on the other side.

SFS

[ml1954]

So what do you have against teaching the Christian religion?

What does that have to do with my reply to your post?

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . there is no current explanation for the ultimate cause . . .

Correct. There are only reasonable inferences which may be posited as tentative explanations. ID is a reasonable inference based upon the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions. It applies particularly well in the case of biological processes, but may also be extended to particle matter, or anything that is intelligible, quantifiable, etc. My use and definition of ID is no different in essence than that of its major proponents. It is merely applied on a wider scale.

You are kidding yourself if you think "natural selection" is sufficient as the "ultimate cause" of biological diversity. It is an arbitrary post hoc description; an arbitrary label which may or may not explain the "ultimate cause" of the diversity we observe.

[gobucks]

I wasn't looking for it. But now, the etymology of innumeracy I did look for but no dice yet...

[gobucks]

"Oh, and if you are here to proselytize, then save it for the religion threads."

Oh, and this is not a religion thread. Riiiiiggghhhht. Thank you for your kind and gracious correction.

[Fester Chugabrew]

What level of evidence would be required . . .

The level of evidence required for ID is obviously higher than that required for natural selection or whatever other substitute might be proposed as tentatively explanatory of an intelligible universe. ID, in order to be "scientific," must be replete with specific references to and from any implied intelligent designer. Irrespective of the fact that known examples of intelligent design do not necessarily contain specific references to, or substance of, the designer, the opponents of ID could not possibly be convinced of any implied intelligent designer of the caliber necessary to design and build a living cell even if that designer would specifically claim as much. There would be disbelief because the standard for intelligence, design, and all it entails begins and ends with the limitations of human intelligence.

If a human were to design and build a world, would he make it an imperfect sphere suspended in space? If he were to build a self-conscious, intelligent entity would he consider it essential to make sure his own name were embedded into each and every component, and intervene in such a manner as to continualy, verbally, remind his creation that he is the intelligent designer? Even with known examples of intelligent design, the designer is not so intrusive, no more than the author of a book deems it necessary to place his name at the end of each sentence, or the director of the play needs to insert himself onto the stage in order to convince the audience that play has a director.

[freedumb2003]

Just proves public education indoctrination works.

Well, I know what a non sequitur is (especially when used when the responder can't answer).

[KeepUSfree]

The problem with your screed is that:

A> There is NO LOGICAL PROOF of ID. None. That's the point of why it is not science.

b> Who are YOU to decide "what is popular". There are millions of more Hindus and Buddhists than there are Christians...even using your own egocentric formula - your Christian teachings would be relegated to a "minor" role....and I don't think you would like it one bit.

c> Using logic, I must give the edge to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be blessed by his noodly appendage) - because at least the FSM theroists don't try to twist science to their own religious ends - THEY have faith in their creator - and don't have to hypocritically fight science because they haven't bound their entire life, faith, and soul on the writings - then misinterpretations - of some dead human beings with their own agendas - which had NOTHING to do with divinity.

The Bible was not written by God.

Here's a decent example. Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights....for our purposed, consider this "Gods Word".

Now, go out and look at "MAn's LAws" as each state and the feds have passed them. You will see a LARGE discrepency.

Why?

Simple, political leaders corrupted the laws for thier own agendas.

Read the Bible.

The message in the Bible is: Be HAppy. Mind your own business. Here's a decent set of rules which, if followed, can make a viable, decent society.

To think that this message was not corrupted by the church - who WERE the political leaders of their time is ludicrous. They were powerful people trying to become even MORE powerful.

If you think the Bible is "the word of God" - you are a fool. All one has to do is calm ones mind and sit outdoors - and YOU will hear the word of God. You don't need some corrupt, dead, priest-politician to tell you what God wants....

[Sloth]

Each of these concepts — adding to idea-space completeness and deserving fair play — implies a dangerous competitor for Intelligent Design

Untrue. Most of what he lists here is simply a more specific form of ID.

[tortoise]

As to the reliability of the Bible historically the Bible stands alone above all other ancient writings. There is more documentation for the Bible than all other ancient writings combined.

Damning with faint praise, I see. Even if it is more reliable than other ancient writings, it still has grossly inferior reliability compared to recent texts. That there was not remotely unanimous agreement on the validity and inclusion of many parts of its contents strongly suggests that the contents are not particularly trustworthy on many points.

[DoctorMichael]

http://www.echoesofenoch.com/hollowearth.htm

The Earth is hollow!!!!!!!!!!!

I read it on the Internet therefore it must be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Bible says so too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..........

Isa 40:22 "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

.......and we all know that the Bible is the literal Word of God!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets all get together and get this into our Godless Public School System as a viable alternative to what the Godless Geologists profess!!!!!!!!

Who's with me?

And now a word from the illustrious founder of the Hollow Earth Society:

[tortoise]

Incidentally, in 13 billion years uranium would no longer be radio-active based on "scientific" evidence of half-life decay.

New uranium is being made all the time in the universe, and according to conventional science there was no uranium 13 billion years ago -- it had not been made yet. Some basic scientific literacy might help your argument and credibility.

[Dimensio]

There are only reasonable inferences which may be posited as tentative explanations. ID is a reasonable inference based upon the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions.

How have you inferred this? What observations have led you to conclude that ID is a reasonable mechanism for the presence of "organized matter performing specific functions"?

You are kidding yourself if you think "natural selection" is sufficient as the "ultimate cause" of biological diversity. It is an arbitrary post hoc description; an arbitrary label which may or may not explain the "ultimate cause" of the diversity we observe.

You should note that your continued repetition of this claim does not change the fact that this claim is false.

[Dimensio]

You should inform me? What is your impetus for such evangelism?

I am merely relating a simple fact. Are you disputing my claim? Do you claim that age enhances the truth value of a statement? If so, I would ask you to support such a statement.

We all know that truth, or at least man's understanding of it, cannot be absolute if man is still evolving. But then, individual perspective and relativity are one in the same. What is truth? What difference does it make to an evolutionist? It's all relative anyway.

This is false. Truth is that which conforms to reality.

Absolute truth would have to originate outside man's perspective, and anything less than that is just perspective. Yours, mine, and Hitler's view of truth are then of equal weight.

This is false. I do not understand the source of your claims.

To discount the Biblical account of creationism, the Bible itself must be determined to be a non-historical, or at the very least, an unreliable historical document.

Actually, all that need be done is demonstrate that observations of physical evidence contradict the Biblical account of creationism. Other historical claims in the Bible may still be accurate.

Attributing the Bible as mere myth and folklore is at variance with a wide body of scholarly study and research to the contrary. (Ah..no, I won't provide a detailed reference list; try Google.) Christianity is, and has always been a religion of faith based on historical evidence. No Christ = no Christianity. No fulfillment of prophecy = no revelation. If God did not create this world, man, and everything in it as the Bible has claimed, then the Bible is a lie and a false "revelation". In fact, if God has not revealed Himself to man, man certainly will not unveil God by himself, unless of course man becomes like God. And of course, if God cannot control the delivery and veracity of his own revelation, what sort of god is that?

I will note that you have not, in any of your statements above, provided any evidence that the Genesis account of creationism is accurate. It appears as though you are trying to claim that if any one part of the Bible is accurate, then the entire collection of writings must be accurate. This is not true.

So, for you to declare unequivocally state that "age of a claim has no bearing on the truth value of the claim"

This is a simple statement of fact. I do not understand why you wish to take issue with it.

and then connect it with the Bible is clearly dagger pointed at the heart of historicChristianity (i.e. not the fake existential stuff).

You are drawing inferences that I have not made. I am merely pointing out that appealing to the longetivity of a belief does not demonstrate that the belief is factual. It is possible that the claims of the Bible are accurate, however even if this is true, it cannot be determined by the age of the claims made.

Your rhetorical question regarding the historicity of Christianity and Creation implies that such a notion is novel news to you.

My question was not rhetorical. When you claimed the existence of historical evidence, I was under the impression that you beleived that physical historical evidence existed supporting the creation account of Genesis. I was asking for you to elaborate on such evidence, if that is in fact what you meant.

No, you are not that ignorant, and yes, it is a pejorative statement, framed in a nice, "tolerant", open-mind sort of way.

I am not attempting to make pejorative statements. I am aware that the Genesis creation account has been accepted as truth by a few civilizations for several thousand years. I merely did not realise that to be the nature of your claim. As I said, I was under the impression that you were referring to historical evidence that supports the validity of the claims in Genesis, not simply that Genesis has been believed as fact historically.

Again, I question your honesty and sincerity, but certainly not your evangelical intent.

Then you are simply wrong. I am not attempting to "evangelize". I have only asked that you clarify your claims which I also note that you have yet to actually do.

No amount of historical evidence can convince a person who so firmly, and a priori rejects in any notion of divine revelation, or a divinity apart from man.

Where have I claimed to reject a priori any notion of divine revelation or divinity? Where have I claimed that humans are divine? It appears as though you are making further faulty assumptions about me.

What level of evidence would be required for you to believe in the God of the Bible, that he created man with a specific purpose, or to overthrow entirely the notion that man is merely a genetic variance, an accident of fate, an evolved species?

This is a false dichotomy.

Whatever standard you set, I trust it will be equivocal or unattainable. Otherwise, your faith might be at risk.

I will note that you have still not supported any of your previous claims with evidence.

You have your faith, and I have mine. Mine is informed by historical fact; yours by an "incomplete" geological record. Yours leads to a pit in the ground after death; mine to eternity. See you on the other side.

You again are presenting a false dichotomy, and you have still not supported your claims with evidence. I do not understand why you have gone to such trouble to avoid actually demonstrating that your claim of "historical fact" is in fact true.