A few questions for devout evolutionists..

[ironglow]

  Care to take a shot at answering them ?  If you do, you can either insert answers between questions in a contrasting color, or if you wish just post with enumerations..
 
        Actual questions are in heavy letters, rest is more commentary.. ENJOY...
 
     
               Recommended Resources  15 Questions for Evolutionists (tract)
by Don Batten 15 Questions for Evolutionists Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity (The General Theory of Evolution, as defined by the evolutionist Kerkut, does include the origin of life.) by Don Batten
 

•  
• How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”¹ Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.² A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? creation.com/loopholes.
• How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? creation.com/code.
• How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See creation.com/meta-information. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? creation.com/train.
• Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? creation.com/defining-terms.
   
• How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”³ creation.com/motor (includes animation).
• Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”⁴ Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”⁵ The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? creation.com/design_legit.
• How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? creation.com/multicellularity.
• How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). creation.com/evosex.
• Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.⁶ Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem. creation.com/pattquote.
• How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”⁷ creation.com/werner.
• How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? creation.com/chesterton.
• Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”⁸ creation.com/sexstories.
• Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”⁹ Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”¹⁰ Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.¹¹ Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? creation.com/science#relevance.
• Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”¹² creation.com/notscience#distinction.
• Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”¹³ Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”¹⁴ If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? creation.com/evo-religious, creation.com/notscience.

    References

• Davies, Paul, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Sydney, New Scientist 179(2403):32, 2003. Return to text.
• Knoll, Andrew H., PBS Nova interview, How Did Life Begin? July 1, 2004. Return to text.
• Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205. Return to text.
• Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 1, 1986. Return to text.
• Crick, F., What mad pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138. Return to text.
• Gould, Stephen Jay, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977. Return to text.
• Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature 366:223–224, 1993. Return to text.
• Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005. Return to text.
• As quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005. Return to text.
• Skell, P.S., The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution; Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn’t further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 Feb 2009; http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html. Return to text.
• E.g. Krehbel, M., Railroad wants monkey off its back, Creation 16(4):20–22, 1994; creation.com/monkey_back. Return to text.
• pbs.org/now/printable/transcript349_full_print.html>, 3 December, 2004. Return to text.
• Popper, K., Unended Quest, Fontana, Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976. Return to text.
• Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000. Return to text.

Related articles

• Responses to the 15 Questions: part 1

[yellowtail3]

What would qualify one as a devout evolutionist?

[BBF]

Does this post belong in Political Issues?

[Junior1942]

Does this post belong in Political Issues?

It belongs in Religious Fanatic Issues, but I don't believe we have such a topic.

[BBF]

I'm waiting for an Mods. input on this.

[crustylicious]

[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/6bBeEIp9ZPI[/embed]

[crustylicious]

[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/faRlFsYmkeY[/embed]

[crustylicious]

[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/qq1HOxwFZCY[/embed]

[crustylicious]

[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/nfv-Qn1M58I[/embed]

[ironglow]

  Why was it placed here ?  From the sticky above:
      "ALL DISCUSSIONS and arguements regarding Islam vs. CHRISTianity go in the Political Issues Discussion Forum"
 
   The theory of evolution is accepted by some Islamists..and some others..
 
    Somebody asks about "devout evolutionists"....  see question # 16
 
     I see we have the same crowd, condemning the post..but still none taking on a single question asked...   I just don't believe you detractors can handle them..     ....care to try one ?
 
 
 
   BTW:  Surely, even Darwin believes God created everything.....(NOW)..    

[subdjoe]

I fail to see why there must be a false division, or rather forced animosity, between science and religion.  Evolutionary theory does not have to exclude God, nor does religion have to reject the idea of natural processes. 

[ironglow]

  Political connection;
  Questions on this subject were brought up by moderators during the recent debates..
 
   Nobody wants to venture an answer to ANY of the questions ?

[Heather]

As a homeschool mother I have been challenged with the task of teaching my children modern concepts like evolution and global warming as they are both given as fact and not theory in the text books. In my opinion evolution as defined as the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals should be taught, but evolution as a means to describe life on earth is just out of ignorance. I do not see what is wrong with telling children that many different groups of people have many differing ideas on how life on our planet originated, BUT as of today there is not enough concrete evidence to PROVE any of them including evolution. When we got to the chapter on evolution I taught Darwin's THEORY to my children. During the same lesson I read them the creation story in Genius, the creation story from the Enuma Elish, the Egyptian Creation story, the Greek creation story,  the Celtic creation story, and even the Korean creation story. I then told my boys that it was up to them (with my guidance when needed of coarse)  to research this further, think deeply upon it, and to pray for understanding. 


 I think the problem we have today especially in science is that we are so 'advanced' that we can't quite grasp the concept that we don't know everything! The generations of kids that have been taught that evolution is the answer will never seek further understanding as they think the answers are already there. When we as the passers down of knowledge admit that we don't have all of the answers, then and only then will the answers ever be discovered! 
Heather

[subdjoe]

Very well said, Heather.  As long as in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram is acknowledged in some way, all the rest is just arguing the mechanism the deity used.   

This classic cartoon:



I think puts it in a nutshell.  Science, without calling it faith, relies on faith just as much as the most "closed minded fundie."  The moderately honest paleocosmologists and physicist say that they have no idea what actually happened at time 0 that caused a dimensionless point of nothing to explode and become the universe.  The really honest ones will say that they think God, or some being, set up our Rube Goldberg-esque universe, started things in motion and watched as things happened.

But most of the ones who are so stridently anti-religion will avoid the in principio part and sputter and argue things like "Well, we KNOW that at 1 x 10^-1,000,000) seconds this, that, and the other was happening under these conditions."  Well, no one KNOWS that is what happened, or was happening at that time.  They may have some well founded suspicions based on calculations they assume are correct, but they don't know for sure.  And, 1 x 10 to the negative uhmpty-uhmph seconds is still not time zero.  It is some period after time zero and telling the conditions does not say what caused those conditions. 

As a homeschool mother I have been challenged with the task of teaching my children modern concepts like evolution and global warming as they are both given as fact and not theory in the text books. In my opinion evolution as defined as the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals should be taught, but evolution as a means to describe life on earth is just out of ignorance. I do not see what is wrong with telling children that many different groups of people have many differing ideas on how life on our planet originated, BUT as of today there is not enough concrete evidence to PROVE any of them including evolution. When we got to the chapter on evolution I taught Darwin's THEORY to my children. During the same lesson I read them the creation story in Genius, the creation story from the Enuma Elish, the Egyptian Creation story, the Greek creation story,  the Celtic creation story, and even the Korean creation story. I then told my boys that it was up to them (with my guidance when needed of coarse)  to research this further, think deeply upon it, and to pray for understanding.


 I think the problem we have today especially in science is that we are so 'advanced' that we can't quite grasp the concept that we don't know everything! The generations of kids that have been taught that evolution is the answer will never seek further understanding as they think the answers are already there. When we as the passers down of knowledge admit that we don't have all of the answers, then and only then will the answers ever be discovered!
Heather

[BUGEYE]

Intelligent design??   no matter how it exactly happened, God had his hand in it.   any other explanation is IMPOSSIBLE.

[ironglow]

  Right Heather and subdjoe;
  Neither explanation can be proven correct  by empirical standards..so offer what we do know and let the student investigate.

[subdjoe]

Quite a few attacks on the message but not one single answer to any of the above questions. Obviously attacking the message is the only answer limited minds can come up with.

When the "message" is a polemic piece which begs the question and is intended more as a "gottchya!" than an attempt to generate serious discussion, what is the point?

Kind of like when the anti-religion types ask "Well, why did God allow the Holocaust?" or "If God is all merciful, then why is there a hell?"  No real interest in answers, just wanting to score some sort of rhetorical points. 

I think there have been several substantive responses on the general topic, while avoiding the polemicism of the question begging list.

[ironglow]

   They are simply asked questions...don't have to be a "gotcha", if they can be answered.  I only offered those questions because the evolutionists often try to deride those who lean toward 'intelligent design' as simpletons...so how clever are THEY ?
 
   As far as the questions concerning the holocaust and hell..there are answers..although I admit there are some which are very difficult to answer, indeed.  ..Some to which only an 'educated guess' can be offered.

[subdjoe]

If they were left only as simple questions, then I might agree.  But with the supplied supplementary questions, commentary, links, bibliography - and the link to a page advertizing the pamphlets for sale - it goes way beyond "simply asked questions."

God and His creation can get along perfectly well without resorting to such somewhat underhanded tactics.

 

   They are simply asked questions...don't have to be a "gotcha", if they can be answered.  I only offered those questions because the evolutionists often try to deride those who lean toward 'intelligent design' as simpletons...so how clever are THEY ?
 
   As far as the questions concerning the holocaust and hell..there are answers..although I admit there are some which are very difficult to answer, indeed.  ..Some to which only an 'educated guess' can be offered.

[billy_56081]

Nope, still not even an attemp at an answer.

[powderman]

Unlike some folks, there are NO monkeys in my family tree, however, I do not believe that applies to all of us. POWDERMAN. 

[hillbill]

  Care to take a shot at answering them ?  If you do, you can either insert answers between questions in a contrasting color, or if you wish just post with enumerations..
 
        Actual questions are in heavy letters, rest is more commentary.. ENJOY...
 
     
               Recommended Resources  15 Questions for Evolutionists (tract)
by Don Batten 15 Questions for Evolutionists Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity (The General Theory of Evolution, as defined by the evolutionist Kerkut, does include the origin of life.) by Don Batten
 

•  
• How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”¹ Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.² A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? creation.com/loopholes.
• How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? creation.com/code.
• How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See creation.com/meta-information. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? creation.com/train.
• Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? creation.com/defining-terms.
   
• How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”³ creation.com/motor (includes animation).
• Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”⁴ Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”⁵ The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? creation.com/design_legit.
• How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? creation.com/multicellularity.
• How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). creation.com/evosex.
• Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.⁶ Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem. creation.com/pattquote.
• How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”⁷ creation.com/werner.
• How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? creation.com/chesterton.
• Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”⁸ creation.com/sexstories.
• Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”⁹ Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”¹⁰ Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.¹¹ Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? creation.com/science#relevance.
• Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”¹² creation.com/notscience#distinction.
• Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”¹³ Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”¹⁴ If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? creation.com/evo-religious, creation.com/notscience.

    References

• Davies, Paul, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Sydney, New Scientist 179(2403):32, 2003. Return to text.
• Knoll, Andrew H., PBS Nova interview, How Did Life Begin? July 1, 2004. Return to text.
• Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205. Return to text.
• Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 1, 1986. Return to text.
• Crick, F., What mad pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138. Return to text.
• Gould, Stephen Jay, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977. Return to text.
• Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature 366:223–224, 1993. Return to text.
• Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005. Return to text.
• As quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005. Return to text.
• Skell, P.S., The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution; Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn’t further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 Feb 2009; http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html. Return to text.
• E.g. Krehbel, M., Railroad wants monkey off its back, Creation 16(4):20–22, 1994; creation.com/monkey_back. Return to text.
• pbs.org/now/printable/transcript349_full_print.html>, 3 December, 2004. Return to text.
• Popper, K., Unended Quest, Fontana, Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976. Return to text.
• Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000. Return to text.

Related articles

• Responses to the 15 Questions: part 1

if you wrote all this? you may be to highly educated to hang out with a bunch of hillbillys like us.i m not sure what they call me, but i think god said akkkkkccccak and spit upon the earth, and then said"see what yu can do with that".from that we all evolved. millions of years later he is sayin "oh jeez what did i do"! dont get me wrong i believe in god but not the way some folks do.god is not in our lives to help us but to guide us along our path. he cant keep yu from doing the wrong thing but your faith in him can help yu make the right decision.

[reliquary]

I'm with subdjoe on this one...these ARE "gotcha" questions that require PhD-level answers that haven't been found (yet?) by scientists.  A Christian can just say, "God did it!"  for each one and blindly ignore anything a scientist says.
 
There are two problems: many religionists won't give credit to anything a scientist proposes, and many scientists believe in the "goo-to-you" concept of evolution, which won't give credit to any kind of Creator or Designer. 
 
OTOH, I see many Christians who accept that many scientists are serious Christians, as well, and are attempting to explain HOW God did it.  That melds the two theories.
 
I am an Old-Earth Creationist who just finished a second career as a science teacher, in Texas.  All 4 school boards I worked for allowed me to teach "The Theory of Creation", using the Bible as a source, after I taught what was in the textbooks as the "Theory of Evolution".  The only trouble I ever had was from those hard-core folks who believed in a literal reading of Genesis...six literal 24-hours days, 6000 years ago...no amount of evolution anywhere on Earth...all the fossils came from the Flood, etc.   

[yellowtail3]

I'm with subdjoe on this one...these ARE "gotcha" questions that require PhD-level answers that haven't been found (yet?) by scientists.  A Christian can just say, "God did it!"  for each one and blindly ignore anything a scientist says.

I was going to write something like that, but... better you than me.

[BUGEYE]

I lean toward intelligent design.  however, we have lots of fossil evidence for dinos etc.  but nothing much on humans or the missing link.  seems that humans may have appeared suddenly about 10,000 years ago so that points to creation.
ymmv

[blind ear]

It seems that no one that believes in evolution will spend any time with this thread. ear

[BUGEYE]

It seems that no one that believes in evolution will spend any time with this thread. ear

since my netbook doesn't have sound I don't know what crustys videos were about. could someone tell me about them.

[subdjoe]

When you look at the fossil record it is tempting to say "Wow! With all these, why can't we show X?"  But the proper way to look at it is "Gee, with so few fossils from all the hundreds of billions of organisms that have died, it is amazing that there is any continuity at all!"  It takes a lot to make a fossil.  Also takes a lot for a fossil to not be destroyed by erosion.  And it takes a lot of luck to find then.

Just look at the Anasazi - well it would be nice.  We have the structures the built, some pottery and other artifacts, but very little of the people themselves.  And that was only a few hundred years ago. 

As for the "missing link," that is a question begging term that makes the assumption that there will be a single fossil that one can point to and say "That is the intermediate step between non-humans and humans."   It actually itself, as much as it is bandied about by the crowd that wants to be show A single "missing link," denies that which makes man man.  It calls of evidence of the joining of the immortal soul to the body.   But, assuming there is a single "missing link" look at it like this, if you take a pint of white paint and start spraying it, and gradually add, drop by drop, black paint to it, while maintaining a full pint of white paint, where does it become grey?  With the addition of the first drop?  The second?  The hundredth?  Would everyone agree?  Then, what if for a few minutes you just stop adding the black but continue spraying?  What if some of that continuum gets washed away?

[BUGEYE]

the missing link is the current school superintendant in my county.

[subdjoe]

Or Congress.