Replies

I totally agree with you. I realize that much of what motivates the anti-evolutionary movement is religious in nature. But an argument is true or false regardless of the motivation of the arguer.

I've reviewed the claims made by ID proponents and then I've studied the rebuttals made by the anti-ID crowd. Some of the ID advocates make some well-reasoned arguments that just have not been “thoroughly debunked” as claimed.

I realize that much of what motivates the anti-evolutionary movement is religious in nature.

The same can be said of the naturalism movement. Their fall-back position now is, "Hey, we're just defending science" but if you look at the movement in the days before they adopted Darwin as their naturalist Rosa Parks, you'll clearly see this.

I recently took a bio 101 class, and, of course, before I did, I read a little about the scientific arguments against the theory of evolution. For me, logically, for any trait to be passed on, the mutation must be in the DNA of the already formed egg or sperm (not mentioned in my reading of arguments against). What influence would environment have on what is already there? Why would a genetically mutated stub, mutate into a leg, and what are the CHANCES that would mutate usefully? Evolution is a good fairytale. I do agree a little with Darwin’s theory that a family of bright goldfish living in a particular pond will probably get the most golden fish eaten first, but will all the golden genes disappear? Maybe. If the theory of evolution were true, the universe would be trillions and trillions of years old, not billions, and the chance of simultaneous mutation (where are present proofs of constructive mutation and not destructive?) is less than me winning the powerball with my chosen numbers at the same time as my co-workers using quick pick. The numbers just aren’t there.