Is religion guilty of moving the goalposts?

[Immanuel Can]

IC:There are no "proof experiments" for Evolutionism.

uwot: No there aren't, but then science isn't about 'proof'

.

I'd be happy to go along with this explanation of science. I think we need to get over the the idea that somehow science provides some type of absolute proof. The whole idea of science is that there is no absolutism. Science is always subject to revision.

And for my part, I completely agree. The great thing about science is its corrigibility. We should all understand this: science is a good thing, and we don't need to impugn it in any way.

It's "Scientism" I would criticize, that is, the irrational and excessive worship of science to a point that science itself never warrants. For the minute its admirers get to claiming its the high and only road to truth, and that that truth is already in hand, they've betrayed the spirit in which real science seeks to operate. It is inductive and tentative, duly possessed of reasonable humility, not deductive or dogmatic.

Yes, Dawkins is right, science has no answer to offer in this respect. Doesn't mean there isn't an answer though. Religion doesn't even attempt an answer. It just happened - shrug of shoulders. But hey we're not talking about the universe here - we're talking about the reasons for life - 10 billion years after the formation of the universe.

IC: There are no "proof experiments" for Evolutionism.
Aidden: Yes there are. Experiments with guppies, experiments with bacteria. Go to the museum, see the fossils charting intermediate development of homo sapiens for yourselves.

The monkey-to-man charts, you mean? And while we're on the subject of fossils, why is there such an extreme shortage of them, given the "billions" of years of evolution claimed? And why are there not millions of failed, transitional forms for every case of successful evolution posited?

We don't need conspiracy theories to call evolutionism into question. A few facts will do. And as for the "Inquisitorial" abuses of modern academia in this regard, they're easily noted with no "conspiracy theory" required. Look, as I said, at the cases of Nagel and Flew, and you'll see two dyed-in-the-wool Atheists get turned on by their own kind. In point of fact, Nagel is *still* an Atheist. It didn't save him from the pillorying for undermining Naturalism, though.

You may imagine that only "religions" mount persectutions: but that's clearly untrue. It is a nasty human trait, universal to all ideological positions, and most especially to those that claim total explanatory power.

That's why science has something great going for it; at its best, it's open to evidence and willing to be proven wrong, if that's where the evidence actually leads. At its worst, it's Scientism, a closed system of orthodoxy that refuses challenge or change. Kuhn's examples of such behavior within the scientific community are very clear, whatever else one thinks of "paradigms."

IC, this is philosophy. Philosophy has never solved anything.

Wow. Well, what are you doing arguing on a Philosophy website, then, Aiddan? You seem to feel there's something you can "solve" by doing so, no? I don't think you believe it.

IC: ...because even Richard Dawkins publicly admits that science has no answer to that particular question (He thinks it has some answers *after* life appears, but for the existence of the universe, or even for the appearance of the first cell, he freely admits science has no answer to offer)

Aidden:Yes, Dawkins is right, science has no answer to offer in this respect. Doesn't mean there isn't an answer though.

Of course. There must indeed be an answer. The vexed question, though, is which is the true answer?

Religion doesn't even attempt an answer. It just happened - shrug of shoulders.

Can you really believe that? If you mean it literally, then I can only conclude you know nothing about any "religion" in particular -- but that seems unlikely, so its a baffling claim. Actually *every* religion attempts an answer of some kind. As for Christianity and Judaism, did you forget the Book of Genesis? It means, "The Book of the Beginning." Wow.

You may not like the answer it gives, but you certainly cannot accuse it of not offering an answer.

But hey we're not talking about the universe here - we're talking about the reasons for life - 10 billion years after the formation of the universe.

I'm not at all restricting our conversation to this. We owe ourselves all kinds of explanations for origins, including "Where did everything come from?" "Why is there something rather than nothing?" "If the Earth is so old, why has entropy not killed everything long ago?" "How could there be a reason for anything in a chance universe?" "How could the first cell appear?" "How could the first mating pair come into existence?" "How could morality emerge from an fundamentally amoral universe?" "How could consciousness emerge from merely physical states?" and "Where the heck are we going now?"...among other things.

And certainly your claim that science has the necessary answers and "religion" does not stop at the question of how life "evolved" after it arrived. You still owe the world the prior explanation of how it all got here in the first place.

How does the first DNA form, in the absence of anything "designy" to direct it? Science has no answer to that at all. It doesn't even try, though, because it rightly sticks to the observable and to what *already* exists. It neither needs to, nor is capable of explaning what happened prior to all scientific laws and conditions, though it recognizes that such a state must necessarily have existed at some time. Science is modest; when we try to make it say more than it really does, we undermine that modesty.

You pick a single example and this somehow blows away the fact of evolution? This is ridiculous. This is a strategy by evolution deniers - pick holes, little gaps, ignore the masses upon masses of fossil records, observational data in the natural world, the fact that natural selection is actually able to explain co-evolution, convergent evolution.

You said "Science is open and transparent." You called it "neutral," and claimed it was untainted by political considerations and slant. You claimed it was a high road to truth in ways that (what you called) "religion" could not be. I pointed to a couple of recent, Evolutionary cases of manifest scandal, disinformation and political manipulation, and you are unhappy that I could pick out any clear case that disproves your claim?

Do you now admit that the monkey-to-man chart and the Piltdown Man scandals were genuine cases of "bad science"? Or are you going to defend them? Or are you going to simply ignore them, because they are simply to clear and too embarrassing to admit?

Ask yourself what would be in the true, corrigible, truth-preferring spirit of science.

[aiddon]

Wow. Well, what are you doing arguing on a Philosophy website, then, Aiddan? You seem to feel there's something you can "solve" by doing so, no? I don't think you believe it.

I knew you'd ask me that...

[aiddon]

IC, the fossil record is there - in abundance. The "gaps" in the record are very easily explained, and trust me, it is not out of convenience. Please read Richard Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" for comprehensive commentary. I am not going to repeat his arguments here. He does it far more elegantly and comprehensively than me.

Lastly, I don't believe in gravity. Gravity is a fact.
I don't believe in the heliocentric model. The heliocentric model is a fact.
I don't believe in a round earth. A round earth is a fact.

Some thing are simply no longer beliefs - they are accepted as fact. Unless you are mad.

You ask how we got from nothing to something? Good question.
Have you ever wondered how we got from single-celled organisms to human beings? You still have not put forward the creationist views on how that happened. Come on, I'm curious. Does it involve spontaneous generation and taking spare ribs from men to create women?

[Immanuel Can]

Lastly, I don't believe in gravity. Gravity is a fact.
I don't believe in the heliocentric model. The heliocentric model is a fact.
I don't believe in a round earth. A round earth is a fact.
Some thing are simply no longer beliefs - they are accepted as fact. Unless you are mad.

But of course. Yet the question is, "Is Evolutionism one of them?"

Your pattern of argument here is a complete non-sequitur. It's a totally irrational way to frame your point. You may as well write,
Lastly, I don't believe in gravity. Gravity is a fact.
I don't believe in the heliocentric model. The heliocentric model is a fact.
I don't believe in a round earth. A round earth is a fact.
Therefore, phrenology is a fact.

You've simply begged the question. You've tried to get credibility for pseudo-science by appealing to the achievements of real science.

Not only that, but you accidentally also answered my previous question:

IC: Do you now admit that the monkey-to-man chart and the Piltdown Man scandals were genuine cases of "bad science"? Or are you going to defend them? Or are you going to simply ignore them, because they are simply to clear and too embarrassing to admit?

In refusing to answer, you've clearly picked "Door #3." Therefore, you must know how horribly bad the pseudo-science associated with Evolutionism has historically been (and if you don't know yet, you easily could look it up in a neutral source), and in defiance of all evidence and reason, are simply refusing to deal with it.

Why would you do that? Where's your love of science? Where's that total devotion to truth, that corrigibility that separates "science" from "Scientism"?

Have you ever wondered how we got from single-celled organisms to human beings? You still have not put forward the creationist views on how that happened. Come on, I'm curious. Does it involve spontaneous generation and taking spare ribs from men to create women?

Who says we did?

I believe in a deliberate act of creation, not in "spontaneous generation," which is just a convenient Evolutionist fiction, meaning "We don't have a clue." Think about it, Aiddan: "spontaneous" means "without any external cause," and "generation," in that context, implies evolution. Would you really expect me to support either? If I did, I would not be a creationist.

But think about the expression itself, "spontaneous generation". How would *anything* be genuinely "without external cause"? Even worse, such a term dodges the whole question of how we get *any* cell, any place, any time. It's a total non-answer, complete pseudo-science. Why would I -- and indeed, why would you -- support such an implausible idea?

[aiddon]

But think about the expression itself, "spontaneous generation". How would *anything* be genuinely "without external cause"? Even worse, such a term dodges the whole question of how we get *any* cell, any place, any time. It's a total non-answer, complete pseudo-science. Why would I -- and indeed, why would you -- support such an implausible idea?

Correct. I don't support it. So what is your explanation? Evolution can go all the way back 3.5 billion years. In logical steps. How far can you go back?

Do you now admit that the monkey-to-man chart and the Piltdown Man scandals were genuine cases of "bad science"? Or are you going to defend them? Or are you going to simply ignore them, because they are simply to clear and too embarrassing to admit?

Just because I forgot to address your question doesn't mean you can assume my answer.

Monkey-to-man is bad science. There is bad science of course. The Piltdown Man was a hoax, pure and simple. So what every fossil ever dug up is a hoax? Who's talking about non-sequitur here? In every field there are charlatans. Fortunately for science, there is the system of check and balances built in so that good science ultimately prevails - peer-review. Are you not only ignoring the initial evolutionary observations, but also the 200 years of peer-review since? But I'm not sure what you are getting at here? How does this discredit anything evolution proposes?

When it comes to hoaxes, religion has burned a long trail there....fragments of the true cross, apparitions of cartoon Virgin Marys, stigmata on the hands of medieval hermits - for goodness sake IC, a hoax is a hoax - they should be ignored on both sides of the debate.

And while I'm at it, I shall address your previous question lest you think I am ignoring it or too embarassed to answer it.

And look what the establishment has said about Nagel, who is *one of their own*: that he's a "traitor". And Flew they accused of having gone "senile" which he clearly had not -- as his response in PN clearly revealed. These were cruel, stupid and untrue allegations which they used against their own people who dared to speak what they all knew to be true in their hearts.

Again, you are singling out one instance. There has been conflict in science throughout history. There always have been. This is no more the case that if a scientist suggested one day that the earth was flat, his credibility as a scientist would be damaged. I do not see the problem here. Perhaps you should consider Dr. Thomas Brody (a theologian of 50 years) of the Dominican Biblical Institute who proclaimed last year that Jesus never existed. Now what do you suppose the establishment did with him?

[Immanuel Can]

Evolution can go all the way back 3.5 billion years. In logical steps. How far can you go back?

Aiddon, there's nothing particularly deserving of the honorific "logical" in evolutionary theory. It's a theory, and not a very good one, since it is decidedly lacking in the very thing upon which real science prides itself: proof. Yet I could have sworn I answered this question in my last message. Let me put it straightforwardly: I'm a creationist. Moreover, I find 3.5 billion years, as any sort of a putative evolutionary range, completely implausible in view of things like the size of the population of the Earth, given the world demographic curve. So it doesn't make much difference "how far" one can "go back," when "back" means billions of years I don't think we've actually had a human race.

Just because I forgot to address your question doesn't mean you can assume my answer.

True enough. I just assumed you'd answer it right away, since it was a pretty important question. But I accept the rebuke.

Monkey-to-man is bad science. There is bad science of course. The Piltdown Man was a hoax, pure and simple.

There we go! I had confidence we'd get there. Good for you: I thought you'd come through.

Now, do I want to say that everything about science is bunk as a result? Of course not. All I want to point out is that science is a tentative activity that is marked by human frailty and political correctness, unless we take real precautions to prevent that, and maintain due humility about our findings. As a matter of fact, I would suggest the very same principle to theologians. I just think it's good sense all around.

But the important fact about the cases you concede above is that the do show that science is not immune to bad thinking sometimes. Very clearly, the monkey-to-man charts that you and I were taught in grade school were "good science that only a fool would disbelieve" or the Piltdown Man, whom we were taught was one of our verified ancestors, attested by the fossil record, were both nothing but bold-faced lies. That's not even a secret today.

So what makes us so confident of the pronouncements of today's high priests of the Evolutionist creed? We now clearly see that their predecessors were charlatans and liars who never apologized for completely deceiving a generation of gullible young minds. So I say that before we believe anything about what they say, we consider the evidence for ourselves.

And now, let me say the same for the theologians. There have been deceivers and charlatans among them in the past too. Let us take none of them on authority, but rather examine what they tell us and consider their relationship to both evidence and logic.

Again, you are singling out one instance.

I mentioned two, actually. Then I alluded to Kuhn, who gives many more. But even that list is not exhaustive, by any means. Galileo, for example, got far more flack, at least initially, from the Aristotelian scientific establishment than he got from any religious authority; and when he did eventually come to the eye of the Inquisitors (who, I must say, are a sterling case of bad theologians), it was at the tail end of a long PR war he'd been fighting with the scientific establishment. So you're quite right to be saying this has been going on for a long time -- both for bad theologians and bad scientists...as well as for merely fallible ones.

On Dr. Brody, I'm not a Dominican. Nor a Catholic. Nor do I back their plays. But I suspect that Brody has run afoul not just of the preponderance of theologians and historians, but of the hierarchy of his own creedal group as well. I'm happy to let him sort that out.

I don't think we're very far apart in regards to the importance of a questioning attitude, Aiddon. It's just that up until now, you've said that science is immune from such critique, since you've attributed to it things like "neutrality" and "truth," even in such matters as its misbegotten romance with Evolutionism; and I'm suggesting that nobody gets a free pass. Put that way, I suspect you may even agree.

Good chat. Thanks.

[uwot]

It's "Scientism" I would criticize, that is, the irrational and excessive worship of science to a point that science itself never warrants.

This from a guy who worships a bunch of fables. I've heard of scientism, but never given it much thought, as it isn't something I recognise. It looks to me like projection, a term I think that was first associated with Freudian psychoanalysis, a load of cobblers scientifically, but even so, there were some insights into human nature. As I understand it, projection is the assumption that others think and behave as you do. So for instance, a theist that believes in absolute truth projects that belief and tacks 'ism' onto things; a point made by aiddon with regard to 'evolutionism'.

And while we're on the subject of fossils, why is there such an extreme shortage of them, given the "billions" of years of evolution claimed?

The reason you don't know the answer is that you have never bothered to find out. A geologist could tell you more, but there are things called sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. Igneous rock, basalt and granite for example, basically cold lava, get ground down to make sediments, sand and clay, which build up and fuse forming sandstone and er, can't remember any more. Over time, lots of it, the sediments build up and the weight causes the stuff at the bottom to 'metamorphose' into harder rocks like shale and slate. Fossils form when a creature dies and its body is covered by sediments. This has to happen quickly, in a flood for instance, so that the body, or at least the bones are not scavenged or are themselves ground down, but scavengers, bugs, worms and microbes are very efficient at cleaning up dead animals, which is why we are not knee deep in dead pigeons. Where and when conditions are right, there is no shortage of fossils, and the rocks they come from can be dated fairly accurately thanks to radio-carbon dating, a trick geologists learnt from physics.

How does the first DNA form, in the absence of anything "designy" to direct it? Science has no answer to that at all. It doesn't even try, though, because it rightly sticks to the observable and to what *already* exists.

It does try, that's chemistry; really not my forte, but there are 90 odd naturally occurring elements made of protons, neutrons and electrons. The atomic number, how many protons, determines what the element is. Protons attract electrons so a cloud of electrons will usually surround the nucleus of an atom. This is simplified by describing positive and negative charges, it helps with the maths, but doesn't really mean anything; like so much of science, it's just a model. Anyway, opposites attract, electrons get knocked out of orbit or are close enough to other atoms to feel the attraction of the protons so that atoms get bound together making molecules. Some molecules attract particular atoms, with particular mass and charge and in some instances, this causes molecules to build replicas of themselves. They don't always do this perfectly, there may be forces, other atoms or molecules, in the vicinity that affect the molecule, causing imperfect copying, mutations, and the mutations that are favourable to recreating that molecule means that molecule get copied more than others. You have the beginning of evolution.

Aiddon, there's nothing particularly deserving of the honorific "logical" in evolutionary theory. It's a theory, and not a very good one, since it is decidedly lacking in the very thing upon which real science prides itself: proof.

Dur! How many times do you need telling that science does not pride itself on proof?

So what makes us so confident of the pronouncements of today's high priests of the Evolutionist creed?

Yup! It's definitely projection.

[Harry Baird]

And while we're on the subject of fossils, why is there such an extreme shortage of them, given the "billions" of years of evolution claimed?

The reason you don't know the answer is that you have never bothered to find out. A geologist could tell you more, but there are things called sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. Igneous rock, basalt and granite for example, basically cold lava, get ground down to make sediments, sand and clay, which build up and fuse forming sandstone and er, can't remember any more. Over time, lots of it, the sediments build up and the weight causes the stuff at the bottom to 'metamorphose' into harder rocks like shale and slate. Fossils form when a creature dies and its body is covered by sediments. This has to happen quickly, in a flood for instance, so that the body, or at least the bones are not scavenged or are themselves ground down, but scavengers, bugs, worms and microbes are very efficient at cleaning up dead animals, which is why we are not knee deep in dead pigeons. Where and when conditions are right, there is no shortage of fossils, and the rocks they come from can be dated fairly accurately thanks to radio-carbon dating, a trick geologists learnt from physics.

How does the first DNA form, in the absence of anything "designy" to direct it? Science has no answer to that at all. It doesn't even try, though, because it rightly sticks to the observable and to what *already* exists.

It does try, that's chemistry; really not my forte, but there are 90 odd naturally occurring elements made of protons, neutrons and electrons. The atomic number, how many protons, determines what the element is. Protons attract electrons so a cloud of electrons will usually surround the nucleus of an atom. This is simplified by describing positive and negative charges, it helps with the maths, but doesn't really mean anything; like so much of science, it's just a model. Anyway, opposites attract, electrons get knocked out of orbit or are close enough to other atoms to feel the attraction of the protons so that atoms get bound together making molecules. Some molecules attract particular atoms, with particular mass and charge and in some instances, this causes molecules to build replicas of themselves. They don't always do this perfectly, there may be forces, other atoms or molecules, in the vicinity that affect the molecule, causing imperfect copying, mutations, and the mutations that are favourable to recreating that molecule means that molecule get copied more than others. You have the beginning of evolution.

Please tell me this is some kind of satire. Am I missing something? It is satire, right?

[aiddon]

This thread has demonstrated the toxicity of religious dogma - and IC, like you I hope others from outside this thread will come and have a look.

Evidence has been presented to you on the almost certainty that evolution by natural selection is the process by which we and all living things are here today. The evidence is astounding in its abundance and clarity and elegance. No, you cannot absolutely prove it because of the timescales involved. But Creationists, in their blatant double standards when it comes to what science is allowed to uncover, will use clever philosophical arguments to point out that if you cannot prove it 100% then it has to be annate nonsense (IC's words, not mine). This is simply breathtaking for a movement which has simply nothing to offer - not 1% of evidence to support their creationist claims. These spurious arguments (Anselm's Ontological Arguments for one) are embarrassing and outmoded. That and picking holes in the evidence for evolution - which are exaggerated and exploited cynically.

Ultimately it comes down to this: IC you cannot align yourself with evolution not because you can't accept the evidence - you are never going to accept the evidence no matter how convincing it is. Never as long as you live. This is pernicious and dogmatic and dangerous. I suggest to you that evolution destroys the very foundation of your view on the world. You are afraid and stubborn, and somewhere in the murky depths of your brain, you know you are being unreasonable. But you can never admit this. You sound like an intelligent guy - in fact you are an intelligent guy, but this shows how even the cleverest of us can be hardwired against reason.

No Harry Baird, I wish this was satire, but it's not. I despair the same as you for the reason of man.

[uwot]

Please tell me this is some kind of satire. Am I missing something? It is satire, right?

Welcome to the real world, Harry Baird. No it's not satire; it's crude I grant you, but it's pretty much what can be seen happening.

[Harry Baird]

it's crude I grant you

Yes, that's what I was referring to. You didn't really answer IC's questions, you just threw a whole lot of elementary science at him and waved your hands a bit - which kind of points to a faith that the answers are there in science somewhere even though you don't currently know them specifically, which might be seen as exactly the thing IC was criticising and you were rejecting as "projection". That's why I thought it might have been (self-)satire. Why you would have wanted to have satirised yourself though would have been a whole other question.

[Kurt]

It's a pity that the sciences have to keep working hard to maintain their influence in the world while religion respectively a lot less. Keep up the good fight. Maybe it will take another couple steps of evolution to kick in before this is not the case.

[uwot]

it's crude I grant you

Yes, that's what I was referring to. You didn't really answer IC's questions, you just threw a whole lot of elementary science at him and waved your hands a bit - which kind of points to a faith that the answers are there in science somewhere even though you don't currently know them specifically, which might be seen as exactly the thing IC was criticising and you were rejecting as "projection".

Now your doing it. Science is not analogous to the way you and Immanuel Can think; science is not the claim that it knows all the answers to the origin of life, the universe and everything; that's what creationism does. Science is about evidence, actually looking at the world and trying to make sense of it from the bottom up. This is in stark contrast to Immanuel Can who believes an ancient myth that claims to account for everything and ignores or rejects the mountain of evidence that suggest his version of events is just plain wrong. There is no such thing as a 'science' which is out to disprove any god hypothesis, science isn't on a mission to 'prove' the world is more than 6000 years old; as I said, all it does is look at the real world and try and make sense of it. You are entirely free to interpret what you see as the work of some supernatural being, but to insist that all the discoveries of science are wrong, because it says so in a book, is the mark of a colossal idiot.
To be clear, Immanuel Can was making claims about science based on ignorance; here are the questions I addressed again:

And while we're on the subject of fossils, why is there such an extreme shortage of them, given the "billions" of years of evolution claimed?

I thought I answered that rather well, but if you are not convinced, consider this: why given the billions of animals that die every day, are we not engulfed by carcasses? Immanuel Can may choose to believe that angels sweep them up, but science can demonstrate living creatures exploiting dead ones very efficiently. The raw materials of life, meat and veg if you like, are very valuable and nothing is wasted; ex-life makes new life. Very few bodies hang around long enough to fossilise.

How does the first DNA form, in the absence of anything "designy" to direct it?

Which bit of the answer I gave don't you understand?

Science has no answer to that at all.

That is not entirely true.

It doesn't even try, though, because it rightly sticks to the observable and to what *already* exists.

That is demonstrably untrue.

That's why I thought it might have been (self-)satire. Why you would have wanted to have satirised yourself though would have been a whole other question.

Just so it's clear, I did answer Immanuel Can questions, to the best of my ability, and there is nothing I said to suggest (self-) satire; you're making this up as you go along.

[Kurt]

Hi Uwot,
This debate of creation v evolution, belief v observation. Would I be correct in thinking it is mainly a hot topic in the US, as most people I know who identify themselves as having religious beliefs also have no problem combining these with observable science. The fundamental creation theorists here here where I live are a minority with almost no voice, or at least no one listens. From my perspective creationism seems to have some power and influence in the US is that true or is it Media sensationalism.

[MMasz]

This thread has demonstrated the toxicity of religious dogma - and IC, like you I hope others from outside this thread will come and have a look.

Evidence has been presented to you on the almost certainty that evolution by natural selection is the process by which we and all living things are here today. The evidence is astounding in its abundance and clarity and elegance. No, you cannot absolutely prove it because of the timescales involved. But Creationists, in their blatant double standards when it comes to what science is allowed to uncover, will use clever philosophical arguments to point out that if you cannot prove it 100% then it has to be annate nonsense (IC's words, not mine). This is simply breathtaking for a movement which has simply nothing to offer - not 1% of evidence to support their creationist claims. These spurious arguments (Anselm's Ontological Arguments for one) are embarrassing and outmoded. That and picking holes in the evidence for evolution - which are exaggerated and exploited cynically.

Utimately it comes down to this: IC you cannot align yourself with evolution not because you can't accept the evidence - you are never going to accept the evidence no matter how convincing it is. Never as long as you live. This is pernicious and dogmatic and dangerous. I suggest to you that evolution destroys the very foundation of your view on the world. You are afraid and stubborn, and somewhere in the murky depths of your brain, you know you are being unreasonable. But you can never admit this. You sound like an intelligent guy - in fact you are an intelligent guy, but this shows how even the cleverest of us can be hardwired against reason.

No Harry Baird, I wish this was satire, but it's not. I despair the same as you for the reason of man.

The way I see it is the evolutionists use “just-so” stories to get around the weaknesses of their model, e.g., the Cambrian explosion and the utter lack of any ancestors in the pre-Cambrian strata; the less than infinitely remote probabilities of any type of single protein self-assembling never mind the number of differing proteins necessary to assemble even the simple form of life, again never mind how the simple form could become alive; the purposeful information contained in the genome. I’d go so far as to say that had Darwin known of the complexity of the cell (we’re just scratching the surface here) and the complexities of DNA, the Origin of the Species may have beer been written or at least would have had a different content. Darwin even noted that lacking discovery of the intermediate forms would undermine his theory. Here we are, over 150 years since The Origin... was published and we still have not found the intermediate forms.

Like, major bummer.

Supposition, built upon supposition, ad infinitum, built upon sketchy evidence doesn’t make evolution a fact. I’d also agree that creationism or Intelligent Design also have their own weaknesses if viewed from a scientific perspective. So what is one to do? I suppose agnosticism might be the most intellectually honest position, but few will settle on that.

But once you start adding the non-physical aspects of life: emotion, thought, laws of logic, numbers, social constructs, morals, etc., the evolution model further weakens as it has no way to address these aspects of life. The Judeo-Christian God as revealed in the creation and the Bible makes the most sense to me.