Replies

The science of evolution is in statu nascendi (as are almost all other sciences). We don't ask babies to explain how Pentium chips are designed, made and operate, right? We're still babies as far as understanding the origins and development of life on our planet is concerned.

The desire to have final answers NOW! is strong, but must be resisted by those who seek true understanding rather than palliative beliefs.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." --Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

It seems that pure evolutionists have abandoned a true scientific effort to robustly challenge Darwin's self-admitted vulnerable theory. Perhaps those scientific logs which remain bereft of proof upon proof of so many transitional structures......and the inability of modern science as yet, to produce a spark called "life" from presumably our cosmological baseline inanimate matter...are making them a bit cranky and defensive? Which leads to ad hominem attacks on those who do dare to take up Darwin's challenge....the personal and professional ridicule and downright censure, of fellow equally educated scientists who fill in the missing links of scientific proof with an theory that the most credible explanation is.... incredible.

If man is so clever, why not kill, and/or build, a cell? Then simply re/insert the chemicals and minute bit of electrical energy needed to bring it (back) to life or to transition it into a new form of life? Creatio ex nihilo in the laboratory should be a piece of cake. WE have the recipe, after all. I'm not talking about recombining existing life...but of a true Genesis/Lazarus experiment. If nature could do it at random, surely WE as products of nature can do it by our own understanding of the (forgive me for the terminology) design.

This should be the challenge for those who believe that "intelligent" design needs to be kept away from vulnerable young minds. OK then. Give the best minds in science a nothingness and challenge them to build via computer simulation our universe, and a man, purely mindlessly without a sentient overseer or designer. And also, perhaps, to explain, scientifically, why mankind only, among known species, spends so much time and brainpower looking BACKWARDS to understand our own beginnings. When (and why) did life coming out of nothing, make that jump, from surging forward, to looking back?

The desire to have final answers NOW! is strong, but must be resisted by those who seek true understanding rather than palliative beliefs.

Well stated - but palliative beliefs are the foundation of the modern media-conditioned economy!

Besides, stoical skepticism will never be as popular as the notions of the likes of Sixpak Chopra and Pat 'Hitman' Robertson.