Thanks for the article.
I’m not a creationist, nor an adherent to ID. Nevertheless, many people act as if Darwin is the Messiah, genes are our Gods, and natural selection is the all-pervasive Holy Ghost.
At most, natural selection is a description of how a particular species may have evolved at a specific time or place. This is a *contingent*, empirical matter, that is, it is not a necessary truth that all species always at all times evolve by natural selection.
In other words, sometimes natural selection is *not* the best way to explain all biological events. For example, with the dinosaurs, catastrophism is plainly used, given an asteroid finished them off 63 million years ago. When people try to explain all things as mentioned in the article using natural selection, we get some pretty funny results.
==I’m not a creationist, nor an adherent to ID. Nevertheless, many people act as if Darwin is the Messiah, genes are our Gods, and natural selection is the all-pervasive Holy Ghost.
Richard Dawkins chimes in as if to prove your point...
In 2005 online magazine ‘Edge The World Question Centre’ posed the following question to a number of scientific intellectuals: “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?” Dawkins revealingly answered: “I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.”
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Williams_GodDelusionReview_02012007.pdf
If they were finished-off 63M years ago, how did the Inca know what they looked like 1500 years ago to etch them on stones?
Darwinists will spare no expense and go to great lengths to make monkeys of themselves.
Its my guess that if evolution worked they would be too stupid to do it.