Yes, that is unfortunate. I happened to pick up a copy of Discover magazine recently, and, apparently its whole editorial staff is of that opinion... even the Big Bang theory, which seems to me about as close as one can get to the scientific version of "And God said, let there be light...", they take as "proof" of a non-theistic origin of the universe. People like that really irritate me.
Unfortunately all of them are anti-evolution, so I don't know if you would accept them as being authorititative.
You would be correct to surmise that I would be skeptical of such sources.
You inspired me. I found a non-anti-evo site noting that Stalin was influence by Darwin
It's not as damning as the quote being used from Yaroslavsky's book. In fact, it has only a nebulous relationship to our subject.
It's also long and I suspect the author is making up significant part of the article. But it is a really great read. So I'm posting the link.
Could you please comment:
Evolution, as taught to me, declares that all life -- plant, animal and otherwise -- descends from the same single-celled, asexual organism; and that life became varied because progeny from this organism adapted to changes in the environment due to natural selection.Why would this progeny ever have to adapt? Single-celled life is arguably the most resilient life on earth. Some say it can survive in outer space.
And why would varied progeny adapt differently to the same environment -- even ignoring the fact that their grandparents are thriving quite happily in it.
Why would sexual reproduction develop? How could it develop at random? I've seen explanations, I just can't take them seriously. I've heard better reasoning from a football fan saying how his 0-7 team can still be expected to make the playoffs.
Then there is the lack of evidence. I can perfectly accept that tigers and housecats share a common descendent. I can't accept that housecats and horses do. And I can't accept the fossil record as being definitive about much of anything.
And then there is irreducible complexity. Somebody is going to say that Behe has been refuted. I'm going to say I can't see how. Then somebody is going to say Behe is a fool and I'm a fool for considering his argument. Sorry, I'm not buying that.
Then there is a religious aspect. No offense meant to anyone on this thread, but there are those who use evolution as an excuse to deny God's existence.
God exists.
If you argue that God exists and evolution is how he did it that's fine. You won't get mad at those with whom you dispute.
It often seems, however, that the argument is "that God doesn't exist so this is how it must have happened," or "it doesn't matter if God exists," which is really stupid position.