Replies

All evolutionists are doing is drawing conclusions that they think are implied by similarities between species. Evolution could account for them. But other theories could as well, and they don't have the problems that evolution does. When someone suggests a different theory, evolutionists attack it as being contrary to the massive evidence. They are NOT contrary to any evidence.

The massive evidence that you think you see is just inference, nothing more. It's kind of ridiculous that you attack the ID people for drawing inferences, when that's all you're doing. I doubt you're even familiar with the ID arguments.

In fact the evidence fits much better into intelligent design, because of problems with evolutionist theory created by irreducible complexity, as Michael Behe has shown, and the calculations that have been made of the astronomical probabilities of such random mutations having occured in the way evolutionists say they did, the lack of the transitional forms in the fossil record, etc.

As I say, evolutionism is basically circular logic. Someone proposes an alternate theory, and evolutionists won't take it seriously. Why? Because we "know" evolution occured, because of the massive "evidence" (which are all inferences). Therefore, the competing theories can't be right. Therefore, evolution is right.

Whenever evolutionists talk about ID, they attack it as having religious people behind it. Therefore, it doesn't have to be taken seriously. This is essentially another form of circular reasoning, which goes something like this:

Religious people are kooks/idiots/brainwashed etc. Why? Because there is no God, or at least not the God of the Bible. How do we know there is no Biblical God? Because evolution occured, which contradicts the Bible! Therefore, competing theories proposed by Bible believers are a priori BS.

The inferences evolutionists draw are based upon experience. We have seen speciation in both the laboratory and in nature. We know it happens. The only other theory appears to be that somebody pops in from time to time and zaps a new species into existence (call this ID, Creation, or the Universe According to Nate). We have not observed this latter phenomenon in the laboratory or in nature. All we have to go on is the word of a small minority of American fundamentalist Christians who claim that this is the way it must have happened.

Now, when we look at the fossil record armed with what we know (not what we "believe") and see that organisms appear to change over time, which "theory" do you think a rational scientist is going to choose? The one backed up by observation or the one supported by iffy mathematics and a particular interpretation of 3000-year-old writings?

Do you understand now?