Do Darwinists acknowledge flaws in Origin of Species?

It is obvious that any system of evolution concerning species is purely a collection of information that is written into the infinitesimal, subatomic parts of all creatures. Only a reasonably sane and open-minded individual will conclude that the evolutionary process is itself a design of the highest order of intelligence and one that mankind, in all his earthly wisdom and knowledge, cannot yet fathom. Within the bounds of this debate, one argument cannot stand without the other. For the opposing sides, do your homework, swallow your pride and learn that "creature" contains "create". Without creation, there is no evolution. Without evolution, creation is stagnate and unsustainable. If Darwin where here today, he might title his book "The Intelligent Design of Evolution". hd4ms

JayM @ 38 Not accommodation; Truth! Newton, Pasteur, Kepler knew that science was the search after God's own thoughts. The lie of Evolution is a harmful cancer on the body of Christ. The fact of Creation got me saved. I want to shout from the rooftops that the God of miracles is still alive today. JamesHip

JamesHip @36

Those "mutually supporting lines from different disciplines" are being eroded, ref ICR and/or CMI.

With all due respect, the work of the ICR is refuted in numerous places on the web, including some Christian sites. They are not scientifically credible. I'm unfamiliar with CMI, but catastrophism, which you mention as well, is also not supported by the geologic record. Be that as it may, though, I still wonder why you seek scientific validation for that which you know through faith. It seems unnecessary at best. Some of my extended family hold views that seem closer to yours than mine. They recognize that their assumptions are incompatible with methodological naturalism, and are content to seek truth within their theology rather than science. Do you seek some form of accommodation? Genuinely curious, JJ JayM

The scientific evidence that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old is overwhelming, with mutually supporting lines from different disciplines.

And we used to think that diamonds also took eons to create. Now humans can make diamonds that cannot be distinguished from natural diamonds. My point is until we know HOW the Earth was formed all guesses as to its age are just that- guesses. Joseph

JayM @35 Thanks for not being belligerent. Those "mutually supporting lines from different disciplines" are being eroded, ref ICR and/or CMI. The forensic (historic, once-only, not repeatible, not experimental) science being used to justify long ages are based on uniformitarian assumptions, instead of true catastrophism (a la Noah's flood). Quite simply, we weren't there; He was. If ID is true, then the Intelligent Designer would have certain identifiable traits. I.e. a "good" creation wouldn't require millions of years of death and disease before Adam's sin. JamesHip

JamesHip @32

I appreciate the rigourous work you ID-ers are doing, but cringe at the long-age assumptions you’ve swallowed.

Those aren't simply assumptions, James. The scientific evidence that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old is overwhelming, with mutually supporting lines from different disciplines. If you reject the science behind those lines of evidence, why are you interested in making ID scientifically rigorous? I'm not asking to be belligerent, I'm genuinely curious about the ID "big tent." You've chosen a different set of assumptions based on your faith. They aren't exactly mine, but you have a long theological history behind you. Why mix and match? JJ JayM

A question for Allen MacNeill, Do you tell your students that Mendel was a Creationist? If not, why not? As for whales "evolving" for a land mammal- all your alleged "evidence" for it can also be used as evidence for common design. There isn't anything in genetics nor developmental biology that demonstrates such a transformation is even possible. Joseph

How many species of beetles were on the Ark, compared to how many are recognized today, only 4,000 years later?

Insects could have survived without being on the Ark. Perhaps PaulBurnett should take the time and read "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study". The he wouldn't erect these starwman arguments. BTW Paul, Creation does NOT insist in the fixation of species. IOW it appears that you don't even understand their position. Joseph

Since you asked, I'm a Creationist first, and an ID-er second. I believe that (falible, human) science will one day reconcile with (infalible, divine) scripture. In the meantime, I appreciate the rigourous work you ID-ers are doing, but cringe at the long-age assumptions you've swallowed. JamesHip

angryoldfatman @27 You're certainly living up to your name!

Here’s another link for you to ignore and/or scoff at. It has two names of those who venerate Darwin and, according to Seversky (via analogy), should be thought of as outside the mainstream of evolutionary science - E.O. Wilson and Niles Eldredge.

While I'll try to refrain from scoffing, that link is long on rhetoric and short on fact. At best, you are equivocating on the word "venerate," ascribing religious overtones that aren't supported by the actual behavior of the people you are criticizing.

I had provided proof of my point before you asked for it, and now I have provided further proof. Any further denials will simply make you look more foolish.

I'm afraid you've completely failed to support your assertion that the NCSE "worships" Darwin. If we were shooting the breeze face-to-face, that claim might be good for a fun rant. Presented here, where many people come to get information on ID, it gives the impression that many ID supporters have other agendas. We should be criticizing our opponents for their real shortcomings, not amusing but ultimately unfounded claims. JJ JayM

angryoldfatman @ 11

Seversky wrote: Perhaps there are some who have an exaggerated veneration of Darwin which amounts to worship but are they any more representative of mainstream evolutionary thought than the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of Christianity as a whole?

Good to hear you say that. I always thought that the NCSE was a crazed fringe group, and now I have somebody from “the other side” who agrees with me.

I can understand how some feel that the Darwin Day celebrations are being taken too far but I doubt that there are many who would agree that the NCSE is anything like as extreme or bigoted as the WBC. As far as I can see, the NCSE is not claiming that 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina are punishments visited upon the United States by Darwin for not believing in evolution or that Darwin hates creationism and it should be made a capital crime. Seversky

PaulBurnett:

It’s things like this that make Noah’s Ark a logistic impossibility, short of multiple miracles.

The greatest of these miracles is the miracle of disguising, obliterating and completely replacing, the geological and paleontological evidence of the flood. bFast

PaulBurnett @22: "Two each of every species of beetle alone would be the mass equivalent of Noah’s Ark." The ark, according to the Genesis account, had a volume of 1.5 million cubic feet. Precisely how many beetle species have been identified? EvilSnack

JayM wrote:

My question then becomes, are you asserting that the NCSE “worships” Darwin in this sense? There is a lot one can criticize about the NCSE, but I’ve never seen anything to suggest this kind of silliness.

Ah, I see now. The problem is you don't know how to click links. Let me help you once again. Here's the link I posted in my reply to Seversky that you have ignored and I assume you will continue to ignore. Quoting Seversky again: Perhaps there are some who have an exaggerated veneration of Darwin which amounts to worship but are they any more representative of mainstream evolutionary thought than the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of Christianity as a whole? The link goes straight to the NCSE website itself - the horse's mouth! - and shows that they venerate Darwin in much the same way that some people venerate saints. Since you're averse to clicking links, I'll copypaste some excerpts for you:

Less than a month remains before Darwin Day! And since 2009 is the bicentennial of Darwin's birth and the sesquicentennial of the publication of On the Origin of Species, it promises to be a particularly exciting celebration. Colleges and universities, schools, libraries, museums, churches, civic groups, and just plain folks across the country — and the world — are preparing to celebrate Darwin Day, on or around February 12, in honor of the life and work of Charles Darwin. These events provide a marvelous opportunity not only to celebrate Darwin's birthday but also to engage in public outreach about science, evolution, and the importance of evolution education. NCSE encourages its members and friends to attend, participate in, and even organize Darwin Day events in their own communities. [...] And with Darwin Day comes the return of Evolution Weekend! Hundreds of congregations all over the country and around the world are taking part in Evolution Weekend, February 13-15, 2009, by presenting sermons and discussion groups on the compatibility of faith and science. [...] "So that’s a fine reason," as [NCSE Deputy Director Glenn] Branch recommended in 2008, "for you to devote a day — at the museum or in a pew, at a lecture hall or in a movie theater, out in the park or indoors on a badminton court — to learn about, discuss, and celebrate Darwin and his contributions to science, and to demonstrate your support of teaching evolution in the public schools."

Here's another link for you to ignore and/or scoff at. It has two names of those who venerate Darwin and, according to Seversky (via analogy), should be thought of as outside the mainstream of evolutionary science - E.O. Wilson and Niles Eldredge. I had provided proof of my point before you asked for it, and now I have provided further proof. Any further denials will simply make you look more foolish. angryoldfatman

DaveScot @25

Darwin’s Finches are an example of use and disuse. If bigger beaks find more use than smaller beaks then the population will come to have bigger beaks. And vice versa when smaller beaks find more use.

My understanding is that this explanation leaves out the concept of survival of the fittest. It's not the use of the beaks that drives the genetic makeup of the next generation, but the fact that, in an environment containing tough seeds, finches with stronger beaks will get more food, live longer, be healthier, and so produce more offspring. The stronger beak has a maintenance cost, however, so when seeds are easier to open, smaller beaks are selected for.

Random mutation (which Darwin didn’t know about) and natural selection (which Darwin discovered) is well characterized by the common expression “Use it or lose it”. That’s why I included eyes in blind cave fish which is a really striking example of use it or lose it.

Again, this is not an issue of use per se, but of a trait that is not actively selected for disappearing. This may seem to be a quibble, but I do tire of ID proponents being accused of imprecision. JJ JayM

Khan Darwin's Finches are an example of use and disuse. If bigger beaks find more use than smaller beaks then the population will come to have bigger beaks. And vice versa when smaller beaks find more use. Random mutation (which Darwin didn't know about) and natural selection (which Darwin discovered) is well characterized by the common expression "Use it or lose it". That's why I included eyes in blind cave fish which is a really striking example of use it or lose it. Lamarckian inheritance is different in that it's the inheritance of characters acquired during the life of an individual. Finch beaks and cave fish eyes don't qualify there. However recent discoveries in the field of epigenetics DO qualify. Gene induction and silencing through methylation are prime examples. During the life of an individual, while the DNA sequence doesn't change in response to the environment, methylation does happen during the life of the individual and that IS heritable. Lamarck has been vindicated to some degree and with him Darwin too. Darwin wrote in Origins that the environment an animal experiences during its lifetime modifies its reproductive organs in such a way as to pass on the changes. Essentially that's true if we consider "reproductive organs" to be gametes, which doesn't seem unfair, and we consider epigentic factors such as histone acetylation, DNA methylation, and RNA interference to be the means of modification. So I ask again, what exactly did Darwin get wrong in Origin and what modern day evolutionary biologists are saying it's wrong? I'm quite critical of the chance & necessity narrative behind phylogenesis and I'm having a hard time finding where Darwin screwed the pooch. Anyone not so critical should have an even more difficult time. One of the things that might be argued is Darwin's notion of blended inheritance vs. Mendel's particulate inheritance. I'm not convinced that on the whole blended inheritance is wrong. How would you explain children from one black parent and one white parent having skin color intermediate between the two? Mendel's particulate theory would have both black and white children being produced from that couple but not children with intermediate skin pigmentation. Clearly blending does happen at least in some characters which are more complex than to be controlled by single alleles. Skin pigmentation in humans is obviously one of those more complex characters. DaveScot

I suggest you dig into some of Chuck Missler’s stuff for a pretty firm scientific rebuttal of this kind of thought. The Bible is so intricate and extraordinarily precise that it has built-in error correction much like a hard drive does. The mathematics of the Bible is astounding.

I was arguing for the infallibility of the Bible, not it's fallibility. (And doing a poor job, apparently.) If I believe in a God who can create the universe, I must also believe in a God who can distribute a book. ScottAndrews

angryoldfatman @18

JayM, your reading comprehension is dismal. Let me help you.

The most we can determine from the evidence is that at least one of the set ("Jaym's reading comprehension", "angryoldfatman's exposition skills") is dismal. Let's investigate further.

Seversky wrote: Perhaps there are some who have an exaggerated veneration of Darwin which amounts to worship but are they any more representative of mainstream evolutionary thought than the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of Christianity as a whole? To summarize using an SAT format: Worshippers of Darwin are to mainstream evolution what Westboro Baptist Church members are to Christianity. My response: Good to hear you say that. I always thought that the NCSE was a crazed fringe group, and now I have somebody from “the other side” who agrees with me. Tell me when we can begin the public campaign to ostracize them and I’m there! SAT format summary again: NCSE is to Darwin worshipping what Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.

Exactly the point to which I was replying. Based on this followup, you do not appear to have been joking. My question then becomes, are you asserting that the NCSE "worships" Darwin in this sense? There is a lot one can criticize about the NCSE, but I've never seen anything to suggest this kind of silliness. JJ JayM

DaveScot wrote: "...I know plenty of Christians who...don’t think the entire earth was flooded and all the animals were saved in pairs on a wooden ark." And it's not just the macroscopic animals on Noah’s Ark that present a problem. How many species of beetles were on the Ark, compared to how many are recognized today, only 4,000 years later? Two each of every species of beetle alone would be the mass equivalent of Noah's Ark. Or worse, how many syphilis spirochetes, tuberculosis bacteria, Ebola or Marburg virii, gonorrhea bacteria, leprosy bacilli, cholera bacteria, smallpox virii, West Nile virii, typhoid, polio, diphtheria, influenza, malaria, yellow fever, plague, etc., etc., were on board Noah’s Ark? Recall that some of these are specifically human (or primate) pathogens, some of which multiply rapidly, some of which are quickly fatal… Where were these pathogens carried on Noah’s Ark (which you will recall carried all human / primate life on the planet) - and how did Noah’s family survive? It's things like this that make Noah's Ark a logistic impossibility, short of multiple miracles. PaulBurnett

Darwin’s Finches are another prime example. When they use bigger beaks to crack harder seeds during sustained droughts the offspring have larger beaks and when the drought goes away the beaks return to the smaller size

Dave, I don't mean to be rude but are you joking here? the beak size has a genetic basis and the birds that have the genes for the larger beak survive and pass them on to their offspring.their is no hint of Lamarckian inheritance here. Khan

Khan:

Let’s see, we know whales didn’t evolve from bears running around in streams w their mouths open, as Darwin proposed.

Darwin clearly got this one wrong. However, he did say "could have". This is not Darwin's theory, it is a proposal for illustration purposes. I agree with DaveScot, this dog don't hunt. we know genetics is the cause of heredity, not the vague Lamarckian mechanism used by Darwin. I think there is no argument that a fundimental piece of evolution was uncovered with the discovery of heredity and DNA. However, I fail to see how Darwin's theory in any way was dethroned by this discovery. The closest we get to a point here is that I understand that Darwin considered the possibility of random mutation providing the raw material for selection, and he rejected it. The modern synthasis is nothing without random mutation. However, it is still nothing without natural selection.

we know evolution doesn’t have to always proceed by gradual accumulation of slight mutations- lateral gene transfer during endosymbiosis is a good example of another process.

A whole lot of magic is assigned to lateral gene transfer. Let me suggest that the view of modern evolutionary theory is that lateral gene transfer consists of single mutation events. A chunck of code, a single chunk of code, which existed in one organism, is added into the genome of a single organism. Let me predict, however, that LGT will be discovered to be an intentional mechanism (ostensibly developed via NFV+NS, consider it equivelant to, say, the mechanism of immunity) rather than just a random event. (It seems to me, as I have often stated, that there are three mechanisms in the modern theory: non-foresighted variation, natural selection, and mechanisms ostensibly developed via these mechanisms. I bet that a mechanism exists that actively participates in the process of LGT.) I hold with DaveScot totally on this one. It seems to me that Darwin's theory remains stalwart, with no substantive changes. That there are a few major additions, the most noteable being the theories of inheritance and of random mutational events. I also hold with DaveScot, though it has taken me a long time to get there, that a rich understanding of the scientific evidence obligates a much less literal interpretation of the Bible than any conservative evangelical theologian would find acceptable. bFast

Correction: (which some prominent and influentual Darwinists like E.O. Wilson practically do *believe) angryoldfatman

JayM, your reading comprehension is dismal. Let me help you. Seversky wrote: Perhaps there are some who have an exaggerated veneration of Darwin which amounts to worship but are they any more representative of mainstream evolutionary thought than the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of Christianity as a whole? To summarize using an SAT format: Worshippers of Darwin are to mainstream evolution what Westboro Baptist Church members are to Christianity. My response: Good to hear you say that. I always thought that the NCSE was a crazed fringe group, and now I have somebody from “the other side” who agrees with me. Tell me when we can begin the public campaign to ostracize them and I’m there! SAT format summary again: NCSE is to Darwin worshipping what Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity. Therefore, let us treat NCSE as Westboro Baptist Church has been treated. Your reference to the Origin of Species being inerrant (which some prominent and influentual Darwinists like E.O. Wilson practically do) is irrelevant to my exchange with Seversky. angryoldfatman

"One problem with the fallibility of the Bible is that is suggests the fallibility of God. If only God had known that people would change bits and pieces of his book, or that the original languages would become obscure. But he didn’t see that coming, so his efforts to produce a book of truth for mankind failed. All we have left are a bunch of stories that can’t be taken seriously. To me it paints God as incapable or unsure of his intentions, and I don’t believe He is either." I suggest you dig into some of Chuck Missler's stuff for a pretty firm scientific rebuttal of this kind of thought. The Bible is so intricate and extraordinarily precise that it has built-in error correction much like a hard drive does. The mathematics of the Bible is astounding. Gods iPod

Sal Gal Lamarck has been quite well vindicated in bacteria. I am hesistant to deny a capability of bacteria to eukaryotes since the latter ostensibly descended from the former. Epigenetics, like gene induction through methylization, is Lamarkian and is utilized by higher animals. Use and disuse is certainly operative. Vestigial organs are a prime example of disuse as are eyes in blind cave fish. Darwin's Finches are another prime example. When they use bigger beaks to crack harder seeds during sustained droughts the offspring have larger beaks and when the drought goes away the beaks return to the smaller size. Are there evolutionary biologists who deny these things? DaveScot

Allan Darwin said whales could have evolved from bears. Surely you're not saying it's impossible for a bear to evolve into a whale. What's exactly would make that impossible? Try another of your "long list" of acknowledged errors in Origins because that one doesn't hunt. DaveScot

It is interesting to note that the belief apple does not fall far from the tree. Christians usually come from Christian parents, Muslims from Muslim parents, Hindus from Hindu parents, etc. There are exceptions of course but the vast majority follow this pattern. This leads me to conclude that human kind is not adventurous when exposed to ideas outside of our belief. It takes a great deal of courage and risk for Darwinists, Creationist, everyone to truly acknowledge flaws in their beliefs. My experience has been that those who acknowledge flaws are often just paying lip service. There are not many who are truly open to contradictions in their basic beliefs. alaninnont

angryoldfatman @11

Seversky wrote:

Perhaps there are some who have an exaggerated veneration of Darwin which amounts to worship but are they any more representative of mainstream evolutionary thought than the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of Christianity as a whole?

Good to hear you say that. I always thought that the NCSE was a crazed fringe group, and now I have somebody from “the other side” who agrees with me. Tell me when we can begin the public campaign to ostracize them and I’m there!

I'm sorry, but I can't tell how much of this is humor. Does the NCSE really claim that The Origin Of Species is inerrant? JJ JayM

Both Darwinism and Christianity are religions. They both have little fishes on the back of their cars. The Christians admit they are a religion. The Darwinists are in denial. Jehu

Seversky wrote:

Perhaps there are some who have an exaggerated veneration of Darwin which amounts to worship but are they any more representative of mainstream evolutionary thought than the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of Christianity as a whole?

Good to hear you say that. I always thought that the NCSE was a crazed fringe group, and now I have somebody from "the other side" who agrees with me. Tell me when we can begin the public campaign to ostracize them and I'm there! angryoldfatman

One problem with the fallibility of the Bible is that is suggests the fallibility of God. If only God had known that people would change bits and pieces of his book, or that the original languages would become obscure. But he didn't see that coming, so his efforts to produce a book of truth for mankind failed. All we have left are a bunch of stories that can't be taken seriously. To me it paints God as incapable or unsure of his intentions, and I don't believe He is either. ScottAndrews

"but there is no teaching of Christ that ever directs us to interpret the scriptures literally" Ah, yeah, there sure is, plenty. Jesus quoted the OT very often and when he did so ALWAYS quoted it as being literally true. If Jesus set the precedent, I'm following it. Gods iPod

In the Origin of Species, Darwin embraced Lamarck's "theory of use and disuse." This is no dirty little secret that mainstream evolutionists sweep under the rug. For instance, Ernst Mayr wrote of it in The Growth of Biological Thought (1985). Sal Gal

Terry Mirll wrote in #4:

"Most Darwinists that I’ve ever come across utterly reject the idea that Origin of Species is flawed to any extent at all."

Interesting; I teach evolution at Cornell, where many of my colleagues are members of departments whose research is either directly or indirectly related to evolutionary theory. None of the evolutionary biologists I know would agree with this statement. On the contrary, looking back 150 years, there are numerous places in the Origin in which Darwin makes statements that, with a century and a half of further research, we can say he got it mostly wrong. That's the way science is; it changes, as new information comes in from the field and the laboratory. Rather than write a long list, let me give just one example. On page 104 of the first edition of the Origin of Species, Darwin suggests that whales could have evolved from bears. However, it is clear from what we know about whales today that they almost certainly evolved from a common ancestor of modern Artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates). This conclusion is reinforced by multiple lines of evidence from paleontology, genetics, and development. So, Darwin got this one wrong. In many cases, Darwin also lacked an explanation for the processes that he described in the Origin. Perhaps the most obvious is his lack of any theory of genetic inheritance. There was no science of genetics in 1859, and wouldn't be until Mendel's work was rediscovered in 1900. Consequently, Darwin simply proposed that traits could be inherited from parents to offspring, without proposing any mechanism by which this could happen. Does this mean that Darwin's theory was "wrong", and that the "modern synthesis" in which Mendelian genetics was integrated into Darwin's theory is "right"? No and no. As I constantly stress with my students, beginning with my very first lecture and continuing to the last, science is neither "right" nor "wrong". Instead, our explanations are either "consistent with the observable information" or not. Furthermore, nothing in science is "True", nor can science "prove" anything, at least in the common uses of those terms by most people. Rather, scientists are relatively confident that their explanations are consistent with their observations (indeed, we use mathematical statistics to precisely calculate to what degree we may have such "confidence"). And nothing in the natural sciences is "proven" the way Pythagorus's theorem relating the sides of a right triangle are "proven". Indeed, had Pythagorus never stated his theorem, the relationship between the sides of right triangle would still exist. By contrast, our understanding of what nature is like is constantly changing as we find out more and more about it. The point is, many individual ideas in science turn out in hindsight to be "wrong". That is, they are not supported by the empirical evidence. When this happens, scientists alter their theories to accommodate the new evidence. This is why the theory of evolution today is not identical with the theory as presented by Darwin in the Origin of Species, in the same way that our current understanding of gravitation is not the same as that proposed by Newton in Principia Mathematica. Terry Mirll, in other words, is not talking about the "Darwinists" who actually practice the science of evolutionary biology, at least not any with whose ideas I have any familiarity. Allen_MacNeill

The difference, surely, is that the Bible, if not dictated directly, is held to be the divinely inspired words of God. As such, it is supposed to embody absolute and eternal Truths that are a gift to - not the creation of - humanity and to which it is subject by God's will. Darwin, other other hand, was just a mortal man who proposed a theory of how life on Earth had changed and diversified over time after it had appeared. What he wrote was never thought to be in any way complete or perfect, least of all by him, it was just the best he could do at that time with the materials available to him. But, as we all know, he knew nothing of genetics or molecular biology, obviously, what has been discovered in fields like paleontology or geology since his time. He is venerated, like Newton, for what he achieved but those achievements are far from being thought to be the last words on those subjects. Perhaps there are some who have an exaggerated veneration of Darwin which amounts to worship but are they any more representative of mainstream evolutionary thought than the Westboro Baptist Church is representative of Christianity as a whole? Seversky

Most Darwinists that I've ever come across utterly reject the idea that Origin of Species is flawed to any extent at all. Any attempts that I've ever made to point out any flaws is usually refuted by the assertion that I'm just one of those nutty IDiots who has never read OoS. (And when I counter that I've read it, more than once, the assertion swiftly shifts into "well, then, you didn't understand it.") Many Christians hold that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, but there is no teaching of Christ that ever directs us to interpret the scriptures literally. My parents would argue that the Genesis account is a history; I would argue that it is an allegory. What most religious critics fail to realize is that Christian doctrine is not monolithic. The scriptures may be the infallible Word of God, but it has been left to fallible men to interpret them. Thus we should distinguish between Truth and truth. The Truth is that objective reality known only to God; truth is that which men believe to be so. Terry Mirll

whoisyourcreator @2

Considering that there is an utter lack of scientific evidence for common descent, the “flaws” of the Origin of Species are too many to mention.

I fear you are greatly overstating your case, to the possible detriment of ID. While we may disagree with the conclusions drawn by evolutionary biologists, there is considerable evidence for common descent. Wikipedia, while obviously not an acceptable primary source, does provide references to good sources showing evidence of common descent from genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution, comparative physiology and biochemistry, and numerous other areas. I am reminded of Aquinas' famous quote:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. . . . If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Can we interpret the evidence differently? Of course! Can we claim there is no evidence for common descent? Not without looking misinformed, at best. JJ JayM

I would agree that many, if not MOST, ‘Christians’ don’t take the Bible as the literal and infallible word of God. However, Truth has NEVER been subject to consensus … and the natural man prefers to create a god to his own liking. Concerning the “flaws”: Considering that there is an utter lack of scientific evidence for common descent, the “flaws” of the Origin of Species are too many to mention. http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/common_descent.html http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/how_does_evolution_occur.html whoisyourcreator

For starters, there's a very good reason they don't think that Lot was turned into a pillar of salt. The Bible doesn't say so. It does, however, state that Lot's wife suffered this fate. But yes, there are in fact a lot of people who regard themselves as Christians who nonetheless have bought into the secular idea that the miracles of the Bible didn't really happen; but that doesn't have much to do with ID so I'll leave it at that. EvilSnack

Let's see, we know whales didn't evolve from bears running around in streams w their mouths open, as Darwin proposed. we know genetics is the cause of heredity, not the vague Lamarckian mechanism used by Darwin. we know evolution doesn't have to always proceed by gradual accumulation of slight mutations- lateral gene transfer during endosymbiosis is a good example of another process. Khan