evolution

Evolution makes a whole lot of sense, but – to a large extent – so does intelligent design. Who’s right and how to prove it?

Our answer:
(source: www.simplify123.com)

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is so universally accepted that to even hint at any kind of revision of it will get you labelled a Neanderthal. But it isn’t just alternative quacks who question some of this theory’s basic tenets. A slowly growing number of hitherto respected scientists occasionally venture… questions. But even posing such questions is met with barely-comprehensible aggression.

The nature of this situation is complex. It can be simplified by generalizing that scientists don’t want people to yield to superstition. They, very reasonably I might add, reject theism – and they take ANY non-evolutionary hypotheses of how life began on Earth to mean that the proponent is advocating “God”. This ain’t necessarily so. Many proponents of intelligent design are anti-theists. Many mainstream scientists also acknowledge the possibility of “panspermia” – but once the seeds of life get here, they insist, they grow and develop according to Darwin’s theory. PROOF of this theory IS available.

But – it must be said – not all scientists and researchers consider this proof irrefutable. For example, “micro-evolution” is a fact. We ALL know this and can observe this. We can, in fact, create modified breeds of dogs or other animals, or we can observe mutated variations of a particular species in nearby geographical locations (Darwin’s famous finches). But “macro evolution” – where an amoeba transforms into a human being – that’s a whole different matter. But science, not without good reasons, points to the evolution of the fetus as a very compelling evidence of how we go through “all the stages” of evolution. Isn’t that proof ENOUGH? For the vast majority it is. But the (growing) opposition doubts that this is enough. And they hasten to add that we’re talking about Darwin’s THEORY of evolution – not his LAW. And theories are meant to be tested!

  1. 1. Anomalous finds are discarded. Any out-of-place discoveries in the fossil record are routinely discounted or re-interpreted. We only know about this from alternative researchers and scientific whistleblowers.
  2. 2. Missing links remain missing. Over 100 years later – we’re still looking for the missing link. Not just for humans, but for ANY species. And, lest we forget, we’re actually NOT looking for merely ONE missing fossil. We’re looking for a whole sequence of them! Sure, lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. Logical leaps ARE fair game. We don’t need all “20” intermediate stages to be able to posit their existence, as long as we’re able to find ONE. Trouble is… we haven’t!
  3. 3. Micro-evolutionary mutations always wind up with FEWER genes than the originals – not more. Genetic mutations are invariably “LESS” than their original. In other words, accidental mutations (as the theory of evolution posits) do not explain the growing complexity of organisms. It also does not explain to complexity of life, individual characteristics and specific adaptations as well as the fact that foreign cells implanted in new hosts somehow adapt to the new environments and “reprogram” their own functions to suit the host. Some of the available theories explaining these and other phenomena remain unconvincing, in my view. In other words: HOW does the Theory of Evolution account for this type of adaptation?

An immensely interesting (but highly controversial) theory comes from Rupert Sheldrake – the “Morphic Resonance Rheory”. I believe Dr Sheldrake’s experiments and logical proofs will one day form the basis of a NEW evolution theory. Meanwhile, while I am NOT a Neandethal (last I checked) and I DO love and appreciate science – even partly embracing the Evolution Theory – I can NOT accept it wholesale and without further proof and research. To answer the question posed, however, I believe that the Theory of Evolution DOES trump theological creationism, but DOES NOT satisfactorily explain ALL the observable reality!

Partial References:

Related posts: