God and Evolution

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Pro-evolution arguments are utterly dependent on mutation as the key process through which existing life evolves.

Depending on mutation to argue evolution is a pretty weak strategy, yet all arguments for evolution depend on the weak-at-best mutation premise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that mutations don't happen?

Because, you know, we've directly observed them.

[Dan Mezick]

Mutations happen. They do not convincingly explain the origin of life on earth or biological progression over time. It's a weak foundation for a strong argument in favor of Darwinism.

Ironically dogmatic belief in evolution has taken on decidely religious overtones. Think about it.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Mutations happen. They do not convincingly explain the origin of life on earth or biological progression over time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Neither does gravity.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a weak foundation for a strong argument in favor of Darwinism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mutations aren't an argument in favor of biological evolution. They're part of what we observe about how evolution works.

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically dogmatic belief in evolution has taken on decidely religious overtones.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it hasn't.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mutations happen. They do not convincingly explain the origin of life on earth or biological progression over time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Neither does gravity.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a weak foundation for a strong argument in favor of Darwinism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mutations aren't an argument in favor of biological evolution. They're part of what we observe about how evolution works.

[ QUOTE ]
Ironically dogmatic belief in evolution has taken on decidely religious overtones.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it hasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no reason to believe that our current Theoretical Model for Evolution won't be modified in the future and possibly replaced by a much better one which may be as radically different conceptualy as Quantum Physics was from Newtonian Mechanics. Yes we have fossil evidence that species change over the millinea. We have observed mutations in viruses. But Evolution theory is very difficult to apply the scientific method to compared to other scientific theories. The experiments would just require too much time.

The most nagging problem for the Theory is whether the Mechanics it Theorizes are really powerful enough for evolution to have happened as fast as it did. I find it puzzling how the human species could have evolved from its precursors in just a couple of million years or so. This objection to the Theory is met by Argument rather than experimental results. Defenders of the Theory ARGUE that Mutation combined with Genetic Diversity combined with Dormant Genes Combined with Cross Reproduction combined with Changing Environment combined with Natural Selection provides the Evolutionary power to explain Quick evolutionary changes that fossil records show sometimes take place. Their arguments are very pursuasive by the way. But Arguments are not Proof by the Experimental Method.

I think there's some truth to the observation that the Theory of Evolution is sometimes defended like Religious Dogma. EVERY Scientific Theory today has shortcomings. If this were not the case we would have a fully functional Unified Theory. Scientists are the first to admit this about Newtonian Mechanics, Dual Theories of Light, Quantum Physics, General Relativity, etc. But when someone suggests that the Theory of Evolution may be flawed he is often met by statements like, Evolution is not a Theory, it's a fact.

PairTheBoard

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

sustained evolutionary progress and the origin of life on Earth are not satisfactorily accounted for by Darwinism


[/ QUOTE ]

Stunning.