Want Some Answers ???


Emailed to Laurence Moran

Your article

I share your uncertainty about evolution -

>>…there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved….
biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution….<<

While there are small changes that occur among creatures, the evidence any changed into another kind of creature is lacking. Indeed the evidence of Darwinian evolution is extremely weak. Biologists [among all the fields of science] are unsure, in fact many biologists don't believe Darwinian evolution has occurred at all. You said,

>>It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming

Yet you provide no "overwhelming" evidence. What Gould said proves my point, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty".

He also said regarding the lack of transition fossils "Facts do not speak for themselves; they are read in the light of the theory”[Ever Since Darwin. Burnett Books 78 pg.161-162]

And said “…yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study”[Evolution erratic pace. Natural History vol.LXXXVI May.77 p.14].

Why? Because his views about evolution were radically different to other evolutionists. You said,

>>Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact.<<

This is not true. The hard-core believing evolutionist 'expert' exists only in the 'evolutionist' definition. Many experts on evolution do not consider it to be a fact. The scientific community is not united [nor has ever been] on Darwinian evolution. For every 'expert' that says “it’s a fact”, another can be quoted saying “its not”.

So to say "all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history". This is the theory, not the fact. That is what the evolutionist tries to prove or believes. You say,

>>Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor<<

That is not an 'example of evolution'. That is part of the belief within the theory. Gould said, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution". So what's your evidence? You say,

>>The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."<<

Where is the real obvious 'evidence' of man and chimp having a 'common ancestor'? What was the 'common ancestor' that man and chimp came from?

You say there is 'so much evidence', its a 'fact', then where is it? Because if that’s your definition of 'fact' then words can mean anything to anybody. Isn’t it more true to say ‘facts’ are interpreted in the light of the theory or world-view. Because you have only stated your religious belief and that’s all.



No reply