Canadian vendor of Darwin’s certainties strikes back against O’Leary

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 19, 2008

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Yes, Calgary Herald columnist Rob Breakenridge has felt the need to respond to my response to his abuse of anyone who does not worship Darwin.

Could anyone here help Breakenridge’s readers understand better why the world in general does not worship Darwin?

Comments

Ted Davis (#108), You vigorously argue for common descent. Yet you say,
If you want to say that no one can show that “chance” mutations + NS can do all that, I’d be sympathetic.
It sounds like you have no objection in principle to major changes in living organisms being evidence for ID. Is that reading you correctly? If not, what do we not understand? If so, it would appear that you would have no objection in principle to a position similar to that of Behe. Would you agree with him on the actual scientific evidence? If so, welcome to the Big Tent. If not, what scientific, as opposed to theological or philosophical, errors did he make in Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution, and why? We may actually get somewhere here. I agree with you that the Northern Ireland model (at least the previous one) is not a good one for Christians. And I am pleased that you have tried to avoid it.Paul Giem_{September 6, 2008
September
09
Sep
6
06
2008
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Ted Davis, I am aware that you cannot respond and believe that is a major loss for this website. So I will not say too much since the conversation can not go on and it is one that should go on here and you and others at ASA should be major contributors. However, that is our loss and I hope it somehow rectified. Just one comment for you and others and that is this is the first time I ever saw UCD and macro evolution linked in such a way or as you put it When I say “macroevolution,” what I mean is the “fact” of common ancestry itself. Whether this is true or not, and I have seen no good evidence that UCD is true, there is nothing in this that says mechanism and that is what the debate is all about. The idea of UCD should be flushed out and the evidence for it presented. Common ancestry of part of total range of species is not UCD. Micro evolution is common descent by definition and is prevalent in the world but it is not everything. And for UCD to be a valid concept, it has to be everything. And as I said before, but even then UCD says nothing about mechanism and mechanism is the only real part of the debate. You seem to agree when you say "If you want to say that no one can show that “chance” mutations + NS can do all that, I’d be sympathetic. "jerry_{September 6, 2008
September
09
Sep
6
06
2008
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

I am very, very grateful for the comments of Timaeus in 104 above. A strong ID supporter once put it something like this in private conversation: this ID/TE thing has become like Northern Ireland (or, at least what NI was until recently): there's just so much history of violence, that it's impossible to talk civilly about honest differences of opinion. jerry--The only answer I can give you myself, with any confidence, concerning common descent is this: as Mike Behe, Francis Collins, and many others have pointed out, the genetic evidence for common ancestry is very, very strong. This is what I would call the "fact" of common ancestry, not a theory of precisely how it happened. If you want to say that no one can show that "chance" mutations + NS can do all that, I'd be sympathetic. If that is what you mean by having no evidence for macroevolution, however, I do not agree. Perhaps I am using the term differently. When I say "macroevolution," what I mean is the "fact" of common ancestry itself: it surely looks (at least to Behe, Collins, and me) that evolution (ie, common ancestry) is true at both the micro and macro levels. I think you have disagreed with my view on that, which is fine. But, if you grant (at least for the sake of argument) that my definition of macroevolution is simply as above, then you must also grant that I have at least pointed at a very solid answer to your question. Is this perhaps why you have not seen an answer? Is it perhaps that many think the question has been very adequately answered, b/c they are hearing something different than what you might actually be asking?Ted Davis_{September 5, 2008
September
09
Sep
5
05
2008
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Oh, what a merry muddle! (“And we are right, and you are right, and everything is quite correct…tra la, la, la.”) So it is true that ID has religious significance to many, ourself included. In fact ourself is willing to admit that “religion” is the main reason for our interest in ID. For over a century, the West has been subjected to a militant atheism and subjectivism calling itself (with typical modesty) “Modernism.” The effect of this atheism on culture and the arts has been devastating. ID provides the resistance movement with a “wedge issue,” as a certain lawyer puts it—a self-evident lever against the sheer weight of the Zeitgeist. Meanwhile it is also true that NS has religious significance for many, including the sanctimonious trinity of Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. For them, NS means that God is dead and man is free to embrace his purely material nature. Note that neither one of these propositions has anything to do with science. Both are philosophical, and both reflect “postmodernism,” which has abandoned the ruined dream of the superman and now attempts to fill the void created by his demise with either power or “play.” Within these very large cultural outlines there are innumerable subcurrents that are neither (a) nor (b). TEs, we are now convinced, can indeed be very sincere Christians and opponents of the oppressive materialism of the age. IDers (including Him Who Shall Not Be Named, for fear of five thousand more posts, and that’s just this afternoon) can indeed be sincere atheists, if there is such a thing, and can have a purely scientific interest in the basic concepts of ID, which appear to be irreducibility, NFL, and fine tuning. What happens at the micro level will not matter in the end. All of the confusions and misunderstandings and hurts—real or imagined—on display in the current thread will be washed away by the great tide of time. The big picture is what matters. Will ID succeed in its ambition to become a wedge issue for cultural change? Preliminary results indicate that the answer is “yes.” It has already had a devastating impact on the suzerainty of Modernism and materialism, and for one simple reason: design is self-evident.allanius_{September 4, 2008
September
09
Sep
4
04
2008
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Jerry and Timaeus, in my experience TEs answer only the questions that they want to answer. On many occasions, I have raised a relevant objection or outlined a specific point only to receive a twelve-paragraph response that answers in exquisite detail a question I didn't ask. If I do finally pin them down, they will engage me just long enough to keep things at the surface level. When the probing starts to uncover the inevitable inconsistencies their position, they find a new interrogator, engage him at a superficial level, and start the process all over again. All the really hard questions are left hanging in mid air.StephenB_{September 3, 2008
September
09
Sep
3
03
2008
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

Timaeus, I was one of the first ones here to welcome Ted Davis and he has my total admiration for what he does at ASA and what he has done here. I would be very interested in what Ted has to say about macro evolution but doubt that we will see any extensive response since the topic is really the "third rail" in this debate and I have yet to find someone who supports Darwin's ideas for macro evolution either here or anywhere ever defend that belief. So I don't expect Ted to do so but then he is at a disadvantage since no defense exists or else we would have seen it. I have not seen a coherent response from anyone at ASA even though most hold in disdain anyone who does not accept Darwin. In recent months I have noticed a more guarded tendency in comments there by some on this topic. Stephen Matheson before he got banned here said he would take on the question when he had time, but that will not happen here. It will be interesting just how any of them will proceed if they ever try since they have been used to using micro evolution to justify macro evolution with out realizing the difference and assuming we deny micro evolution too.jerry_{September 3, 2008
September
09
Sep
3
03
2008
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

Jerry @103: I want to disagree with you about one point here, but first I want you to know that my disagreement in no way implies disrespect for your many strong contributions to the discussions here. I don't know whether Jack Krebs is avoiding our arguments or not, but I think it's unfair to say that Ted Davis won't answer direct questions. I think he's answered most of the questions we've set for him, even if he hasn't always given the answer that we want to hear; further, it may well be that he has simply missed some of them (sometimes we fire 20 posts a day at him). Remember that he has a day job (as a professor of the history of science, and I would guess an excellent one). I of course would love it if he answered all the questions we posed to him at length, because I've found his answers balanced and informative, even when he disagrees with us. I would be interested in his answer to my Martian rock sculpture example, for one thing. (See the 244-post AAAS video thread.) But he may simply not have the time to answer every question. I don't think Ted minds at all that we vigorously disagree with some of his points; he's a true scholar and is not offended by intellectual criticism as such. But I think we should not impugn his motives. From his point of view, he's coming into a lion's den here, and he's doing it with the calm of a saint. We won't get many TEs like him to visit so regularly and write such generously long posts, so I think that, while we can and should hit him hard intellectually -- he's a big boy, and very bright, and can take it -- we should impute only the highest motives to him. From my knowledge of him, the highest motives are the only ones he's got. T.Timaeus_{September 3, 2008
September
09
Sep
3
03
2008
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Jack Krebs is a nice guy and has admitted his involvement with this issue due to personal reasons. I have been trying for over a year to get Jack to give an honest answer about the debate and he has used every possible technique to avoid answering a simple question. It would be instructional to see just how Jack has avoided the question. The standards were not set up with evolution in mind and as far as I am concerned are good standards. The problem is that something that is proposed as science fails the standards. Jack knows it that if he admits it, he is toast as far as participation in setting standards in Kansas. Similarly, Ted Davis will not answer direct questions about evolution. I have a couple out there for him that are also going unanswered. Ted Davis is a great source for information and he has been a great asset for us here but he too fails on the issue of evolution. At ASA there is a whole stable of scientists who range from neutral towards ID to very hostile but I have yet to see anyone of them ever answer the evolution questions except to sneer at anyone who does not accept the conventional wisdom.jerry_{August 28, 2008
August
08
Aug
28
28
2008
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Jerry, let me be more specific. I don’t think those KC standards were written to control runaway evolutionary theory but rather to institutionalize anti-ID ideology. The very idea that science can be established through consensus and then codified into law is ludicrous.StephenB_{August 27, 2008
August
08
Aug
27
27
2008
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

----Jerry: "I rest my case with Jack Krebs. Does anyone besides Jack think he has answered my question." I don't think he answered or even approached the question.StephenB_{August 27, 2008
August
08
Aug
27
27
2008
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, Could just one of that vast majority please provide some empirical data since you/we know that you cannot do so. You obviously know that you are making the fallacious argument from authority. You just admitted that there is no information otherwise you would be all over it. Is that any way to teach science to children and young adults. I would be embarrassed by your answer. And Jack you have an educational background in evolutionary biology.jerry_{August 27, 2008
August
08
Aug
27
27
2008
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

Can I ask someone to give me a good definition of micro vs macroevolution. My understanding from reading the threads is by macro one means to say a new species is form, but an obvious caveat of that is our definition of species is somewhat vague. Or perhaps I am just reading it wrong. Thanks.Winston Macchi_{August 27, 2008
August
08
Aug
27
27
2008
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

The vast majority of the world's biologist disagree with you, Jerry, and the science standards reflect what the vast majority believe. It's that simple. When the majority believe as you do, the science standards will change.Jack Krebs_{August 27, 2008
August
08
Aug
27
27
2008
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I rest my case with Jack Krebs. Does anyone besides Jack think he has answered my question. Has he ever been able to show that gradualism or any other mechanism whether natural or not has anything to do with macro evolution? And if it hasn't then any such association should be removed from the Kansas curriculum and text books. It should be alright to mention that macro evolution took place, or specifically that new species appeared in the fossil record that are distinctly different from any that have appeared before but there is no known mechanism to account for their origin and that the ideas of Charles Darwin as expressed in the Origin of Species for the origin of all species have no basis in fact. No scientific data has been discovered to support Darwin's thesis except for minor variations in current species. Maybe Jack could comment as to why my previous paragraph is not more accurate than what is in the curriculum and the textbooks.jerry_{August 27, 2008
August
08
Aug
27
27
2008
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Thanks Stephen. Also, I think I answered Jerry's question in #91, although the sentence "Repeatable means that if we take additional observations that our original observations will be observed" should have said "Repeatable means that if we take additional observations then our original observations will be confirmed." And to Rude: I presume that by "government schools" you mean public education, which happens to be where I work everyday. I don't doubt that many students are bored with school, but science is not boring just because it teaches mainstream science. Science is fascinating, and many a student has a good teacher that gets that enthusiasm for science across.Jack Krebs_{August 27, 2008
August
08
Aug
27
27
2008
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Jack, I, for one, would be willing to start all over again, meaning that I am resolved to take a more respectful tone. Frankly, I don’t like being snippy, because it doesn’t really fit my personality. In fact, it makes me uncomfortable. Yes, it did seem to me that you were evading some fundamental questions. To me, it seemed more of a strategy than a character flaw, so you may be reading a little too much into that. On the other hand, there are a lot more of us here than there are of you. So, I am sure it is hard to keep up. Keep this in mind. We are the underdogs in this conflict, and you are the favorite. It is easy to be congenial and magnanimous when the courts, the state, and the academy see things your way. There is nothing like a little power to give one a sense of equipoise. It is not so easy to exhibit that same generous spirit when you are fighting for your life under unjust circumstances. Still, some things are re-doable, and I think defining one’s internet ethos is one of them. So, I am going to practice more patience. There is also the problem of pride, people get competitive, and truth gets lost in the process. Add to that the difficulty of processing life-changing facts that can shake up one’s world view and uncharitable dialogue may be the result. That said, my point and Jerry’s point were pretty straightforward. I will not confuse this thread with my agenda, but Jerry’s question still stands, and I think it is a fair one.StephenB_{August 27, 2008
August
08
Aug
27
27
2008
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

"The goal of the science standards is to describe core findings of mainstream science, and the statements about evolutionary science that are in the standards are such." So that's why government schools are so boring!Rude_{August 27, 2008
August
08
Aug
27
27
2008
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Darn - too much of a hurry here at lunch: Corrected grammar: I don’t mind you saying you disagree or saying that you think my answer is inadequate, or just plain wrong, but I think you could stop making accusations about my character. I don’t do that to others, and I would appreciate it if it were not done unto meJack Krebs_{August 27, 2008
August
08
Aug
27
27
2008
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

Corrected grammar: I don’t mind you saying you disagree or saying that you think my answer is inadequate, or just plain wrong, but I think you could stop making accusations about my character. I don’t do that to others, and I would appreciate it if it were not>/b> done unto me.Jack Krebs_{August 27, 2008
August
08
Aug
27
27
2008
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Mainstream scientists believe that evolutionary theory meets these criteria, and the standards reflect that. Repeatable doesn't mean that we have to be able to reproduce something in the here and now - if it did all theories about the past would be excluded. Repeatable means that if we take additional observations that our original observations will be observed: the fact that trilobite fossils are found in the Devonian era but not the Eocene is a repeatable observation. I know you guys don't believe or accept the conclusions of mainstream science, but as far as the Kansas Science standards are concerned, that is irrelevant. The goal of the science standards is to describe core findings of mainstream science, and the statements about evolutionary science that are in the standards are such. Also, I am a bit tired of this accusation that I evade, duck and deflect. I answer the questions I am interested in and have time for, and often do not answer them to your satisfaction. I don't mind you saying you disagree or saying that you think my answer is inadequate, or just plain wrong, but I think you could stop making accusations about my character. I don't do that to others, and I would appreciate it if it were to done unto me.Jack Krebs_{August 27, 2008
August
08
Aug
27
27
2008
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

StephenB, What are the odds that Jack Krebs ducks the question, or deflects or gives an evasive answer? I have asked it several times.jerry_{August 27, 2008
August
08
Aug
27
27
2008
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Jerry @88. Good point. Good question. Do not look forward to an answer.StephenB_{August 27, 2008
August
08
Aug
27
27
2008
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, you said "Jerry asks, Jack, you keep on ducking the issue. Why is something taught in the science curriculum that fails the Kansas science standards? I don’t understand this question. How can something “fail” the Kansas science standards? And schools teach lots of stuff that is not in the standards: the standards are a core set of learning outcomes, not a complete curriculum. So I really don’t understand this question." Here is the reference to the Kansas science standards that I made back in March and have repeated since that time. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/complex-speciation-of-humans-and-chimpanzees/#comment-189012 Tell me if either the quote is wrong or that macro evolution meets this part of the standard. "Scientists test explanations against the natural world, logically integrating observations and tested hypotheses with accepted explanations to gradually build more reliable and accurate understandings of nature. Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable, and findings must be confirmed through additional observation and experimentation." I have never seen anyone, anywhere show that macro evolution is testable and repeatable or ever confirmed through observation and experimentation let alone determine a mechanism for it. So because of this there should not be any hint or implication that gradualism leads to macro evolution in the curriculum and text books used in Kansas.jerry_{August 27, 2008
August
08
Aug
27
27
2008
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Ted Davis asks:
What about you, jerry? Does the evidence presented by Behe and Collins persuade you of UCD?
And Jerry replies:
I have not seen any evidence by Behe or anyone else that convinces me of UCD.
Besides which, convinced though he be of UCD, it is not Behe's project to convince others or present the evidence that he finds compelling. His books are on the evidence for ID, not for UCD. StephenB says:
ID is a cultural project and it is a scientific project. So, there is a cultural component, and a scientific component.
exactly, the two are distinct without necessarily an absolute and universal separation.Charlie_{August 26, 2008
August
08
Aug
26
26
2008
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

Jack Krebs, I will try to find the relevant part of the Kansas standards for macro evolution. I am on vacation with a lot of family members so late tonight if our internet connection is still working, I will send you what I was referring to. It has to do with science must be replicable.jerry_{August 26, 2008
August
08
Aug
26
26
2008
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Ted Davis, I have not seen any evidence by Behe or anyone else that convinces me of UCD. I define UCD as good evidence to support transitions from single cell prokaryotes to all multi-celled organisms. The only link I currently see between life and UCD is the commonality of DNA and a temporal sequence in the fossil record. There is strong genetic evidence for common ancestors of several sets of organisms but not for all organisms. This evidence could also support the devolution of several organisms from a common ancestor and have nothing to do with UCD. And if there appears new evidence to support UCD for all organisms, there is no evidence as of now for any mechanism, especially gradualism, to accomplish UCD. In fact the evidence argues against gradualism except for devolution. So even to accept UCD does not get anyone closer to gradualism or Darwinian evolution because there is no evidence of a link between the two. So my question to you is what does UCD mean in the evolution debate and why does accepting it have any relevance for or against ID?jerry_{August 26, 2008
August
08
Aug
26
26
2008
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

-----Ted Davis: In all fairness, Stephen, I think a lot of people can be confused about this, and for good reasons. One reason, as I’ve pointed out before, is the statement on the masthead here, which includes the following words: ----- “Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project.” Let’s apply the principle of right reason, here, and see where it takes us. ID is a cultural project and it is a scientific project. So, there is a cultural component, and a scientific component. The cultural component is mainly about public relations and influence; the scientific component is about premises and methodologies. Let’s take an example of each: The cultural component is all about improving the culture for the common good. Everybody cares about which way the culture goes, and everyone enters into solidarity with those whose views align with their own. There is nothing remarkable about that.. The scientific component consists of rigorous scientific methods, which incorporate such terms as “specified complexity,” and “irreducible complexity.” Obviously, nothing in Dembksi explanatory filter speaks about the culture or hints of religion, nor does it presuppose the existence of a creator or anything else. It is a way of investigating things, plain and simple -----“I’ve said this often, Stephen, mainly elsewhere but also here. Honestly, Stephen, am I not being completely fair to say this? Isn’t it really, really hard for people to separate the science from the cultural part, the part that constitutes the ID movement? Isn’t your statement falsified by this?” It’s not hard if they know anything at all about the subject. What does the concept of “irreducible complexity” have to do with changing the culture? Nothing at all. What does the notion of “cosmological fine tuning” have to do with trying to gain freedom of speech in the academy? Nothing. There is a culture war and there is science; both are real, both are different. To be sure, both are necessary. Not only must ID do science, it must also protect itself from a hostile academy that seeks to kill it even before it enters the arena. One of our adversaries’ most uncharitable tactics is to publicize the myth that ID motives leak into ID methodology. Thus, popularize the notion that the ID scientist cannot separate his motives from his methods, which is another way of saying that he is not really a scientist at all. Every time someone suggests that the ID cultural movement is inseparable from ID science, he perpetuates that myth. -----“Suffice it to say that ID leaders *want* a large amount of grassroots support, and to get that, it’s been necessary to blur the distinction between ID ideas and the ID movement. So much so, apparently, that at least here on UcD they are quite seamlessly of a single piece. Could you possibly be reading your biases and prejudices into your observations? What are the cultural or religious elements in William Dembski’s explanatory filter? Explain to me how observing 500 bits of functionally specified complex information in a DNA molecule makes a cultural or a religious statement? Better yet, reassure me that you are on speaking terms with the concepts involved. Make no mistake, everyone tries to exert influence. The Darwinist community, which you support in an unqualified way, finds much support from the American Secular Humanist Association. Some of the biggest guns on your side have signed and pledged support to the “Humanist Manifesto.” Inasmuch as Darwinistic evolution is built right in to its purpose statement, it seems clear that they are tying use that same principle to change the culture. Barbara Forrest serves on one of its local boards, and Eugenie Scot is open about her “non-belief.” Did you know that both have signed this document and pledged support to its principles? Do you care? Compared to the enormous influence of the “Humanist Manifesto, the “Wedge document,” is little more than an office memo. From the standpoint of reasoned proportionality, you seem to be straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Stephen BussellStephenB_{August 26, 2008
August
08
Aug
26
26
2008
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

jerry-- I thought had answered, not ducked, your question about evidence for UCD. The evidence that I find most compelling is genetic, and its reviewed by Behe in his latest book and Collins in his book. They are the people who know the relevant science, not me--esp Collins, since he's a geneticist and that's the relevant field. I agree that one can ask whether a mechanism for this has been clearly established--whether it's more likely to be "random," or partly "random" (as in Conway Morris), or not "random" (as in ID). But, it seems to me, UCD looks like a "fact," whether or not the mechanism is clearly established. That's a partial answer, admittedly, but it's an answer. I think UCD is true, and very well supported empirically. I am more agnostic about the mechanism(s). What about you, jerry? Does the evidence presented by Behe and Collins persuade you of UCD?Ted Davis_{August 26, 2008
August
08
Aug
26
26
2008
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Stephen-- In your reply to DaveScot (70), you said that the ID movement "has nothing at all to do with ID science." If I'm not mistaken, you've said similar things on other threads. In all fairness, Stephen, I think a lot of people can be confused about this, and for good reasons. One reason, as I've pointed out before, is the statement on the masthead here, which includes the following words: "Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project." I didn't make this up, Stephen, as you know. When I read this sentence in context--seeing its prominent location on a blog owned by the most prominent ID theorist of all (IMO), then what am I supposed to conclude? That a cultural project has nothing at all to do with ID? Let me just state, for the record, that Bill can say whatever he wishes about ID and what it all means--he's earned that right, the hard way. I am not being critical of how he sees this, not in the least. I am being critical of your claim that the ID movement has nothing at all to do with ID science. You are a regular here on UcD, and presumably you like its overall approach and attitude. (Please correct me if this is not a fair assumption.) The attitude and approach here seems quite clear, on this matter: ID *is* a "cultural project," as well as a scientific and intellectual project. I've said this often, Stephen, mainly elsewhere but also here. Honestly, Stephen, am I not being completely fair to say this? Isn't it really, really hard for people to separate the science from the cultural part, the part that constitutes the ID movement? Isn't your statement falsified by this? I for one would be *delighted* to see ID ideas set apart from the ID movement: that's the main reason I've not been able to enter your big tent. But, to do that, IMO, some steps need to be taken that haven't been taken and don't appear to be in the offing. I won't rehash the specifics yet again. Suffice it to say that ID leaders *want* a large amount of grassroots support, and to get that, it's been necessary to blur the distinction between ID ideas and the ID movement. So much so, apparently, that at least here on UcD they are quite seamlessly of a single piece.Ted Davis_{August 26, 2008
August
08
Aug
26
26
2008
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Perhaps at the level of phyla or class, the "basic types" popped into existence. Then working through a designed process life was fleshed out. There is no evidence for UCA in the fossil record. It does look as if things just popped into existence. If you believe in God (the kind of God described in the Bible) then this shouldn't be that difficult to accept.PannenbergOmega_{August 24, 2008
August
08
Aug
24
24
2008
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply