Replies

And the creationists haven't changed a word of their "science."

As opposed to evolutionists, who rebuild our theories from scratch every decade or so.

When we first began to document the embryonic development of various species, we observed that they follow the same basic patterns that evolution took. Obviously, developing embryos went through their respective evolutionary histories as they matured. The Ontogenic Law was required learning for all budding biologists: Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny. (i.e. Embryonic development reflects the evolutionary pathways of the respective species) Of course, over the years the evidence disproved the Law, and it soon fell out of favour. Quoting the Ontogenic Law is great fun at cocktail parties ... a great way to impress the ladies.

We used to predict that we would be able to observe the evolution of new species, based on a derived rate of evolution (using the number of species observed at current state and over time from the fossil record). When we failed to find such evidence, we revised our theories to introduce periods of extremely rapid evolution followed by long periods of evolutionary inactivity. The fossil record seems to support this view, but realistically the record is so sketchy that this could easily be an artifact of missing fossil evidence during the periods of evolutionary inactivity.

With the advent of gene mapping, we predicted we could demostrate the phylogenic pathways by tracing genes and tracking them through the phylogenic tree. This was excellent proof of evolutionary development, until we discovered that humans, rutebagas, and starfish share genes. So we came up with the concept of jumping genes that could transverse species.

And the creation of the universe has long been held to be a gradual process starting at various points in space. Eventually, this theory fell out of favour, and the Big Bang theory became in vogue. Big Bang advocates had been ridiculed for over a hundred years. Suddenly, physicists found themselves doing a 180 and joining the theologins in their Big Bang camp.

Then there was the paper introduced in the late 70's where a researcher used the largest published rate of evolution, the largest published rates of mutations, the longest published estimates of the ages of the universe and of the earth, and the smallest estimates of the number of species present on the earth at current state and at differing times in geological history. Based on those numbers, the odds of chance creating evolution were so inifinitesimal that it was ludicrous to consider. (I've not followed this particular argument since the 80's. I would be interested in hearing what has happened in this arena in the ensuing 20 years.)

Now anyone familiar with the scientific process isn't surprised by this evolution of the evolutionary theory. But the disconcerting aspect is that so often, the process leads the scientific community into the camp of the theologians who have scarecely moved in a couple of millenia.