National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

Discovery Institute News ^ | 11/8/04 | Jonathan Wells

[Aquinasfan]

This defect of original sin ...

Huh. I wonder how often proponants of "Intelligent Design" recognize that their "Designer" wasn't very good at his job? Very, very sloppy.

The defect of original sin occurred as a result of man's rebellion against God. When man rebelled, his nature was forever damaged. Analogously, when you choose to jump off a roof, you go splat. That wouldn't be God's fault. It would be yours.

[orionblamblam]

> The defect of original sin occurred as a result of man's rebellion against God.

Yet another design flaw. What's the point of being an egomaniacal, self-absorbed deity and producing a species specifically for the purposes of having them worship you and flatter you, if you can't even do it right?

Maybe God should have gone through a few design reviews first, yes? Maybe his configuration management system was rather poor. Or maybe he just outsourced the manufacturing overseas to India, and had some of the lower-level Hindu deities in Bangladesh slap things together.

[jazzo]

bump

[Aquinasfan]

Yet another design flaw.

God allows evil so that greater good may come. The greatest example of this is Jesus' triumphant death and resurrection.

Why did God create beings with free will that could rebel against him? One partial answer is that beings without free will would be robots. Beings with true intellects and wills are immeasurably greater creations than robots since they can think, choose and, most importantly, love.

Additionally, beings with free will are afforded the opportunity to experience eternal joy with God in heaven by virtue of Christ's sacrificial death on the cross. The difference between earthly suffering, and even death, to eternal life with God is like the difference between the finite and the infinite. There is no comparison.

An exhaustive yet concise treatment of the problem of evil here.

[orionblamblam]

> God allows evil so that greater good may come.

Hmm. One woudl think he'd be able to crank out that "greater good" on command. Yet another example of an imperfect designer...

> Why did God create beings with free will that could rebel against him?

Sadism seems to be the answer if one reads the Bible. God *wants* most people to go to Hell (this woudl explain Liberals and Creationists).

[Elsie]

So? Facts do not add UP to your ET requirements?

Not my fault.

[WildTurkey]

NO ONE ever uses the same argument to state that the CHEETAH would never get bumped into existance from the pre-cheetah, because of 'too few individuals'.

You wouldn't make the above statement if you really understood evolutionary theory, but we know you are just repeating the fallacious arguments you have read on some web-site.

[StJacques]

". . . In a steady state process, such as evolution, time cancels out of the equation. Since speciation should be occuring on a continual basis it should be at ALL stages at any given point in time throughout the biosphere, and we should be able to see it by taking a representative sample.

The fact that we don't is a major predictive problem with the theory of evolution"

Forgive me for being blunt frgoff, but you have posted nonsense.

First of all; time does not cancel out any equation. The "equation" -- which can only mean the development of a new species -- is only completed when an offspring possessing a sufficient number of mutations becomes intersterile with some remote parent that it now becomes qualified as a new species.

Second; it is not "speciation" as you put it which can be visible at all times but "mutations." And they are visible at all times.

The phrase "it should be at ALL stages at any given point in time throughout the biosphere" is nonsensical for joining mutually exclusive possibilities as halves of a whole.

And there is no such thing as a "representative sample" of "speciation."

[Elsie]

Sorry, but I haven't read it on some website.

It stands to reason that if today's biologists state the cheetah's are in danger of becoming extinct because of not enough DIVERSITY in the gene pool (NOT too few individuals) then actually GETTING 'diversity' in the gene pool to begin with is VERY suspicious as well.

Where is the fallacy?

[Elsie]

...an offspring possessing a sufficient number of mutations ...

And there is MY point, that there SHOULD be lots of UNCOMPLETED mutated things (for lack of a better description) found in most ALL species now; just WAITING for the final 'mutation' to fall into place, evolving new CREATURE.

---

Where are they?

[WildTurkey]

the fallacy is that you propose that the cheetah had no evolutionary advantage over the pre-cheetah which is the basis for evolutionary theory.

It sort of like your proposing that the automobile is a failure since it sinks everytime you drive it into a river.

[StJacques]

"And there is MY point, that there SHOULD be lots of UNCOMPLETED mutated things (for lack of a better description) found in most ALL species now; just WAITING for the final 'mutation' to fall into place, evolving new CREATURE."

Actually; no there shouldn't be any "uncompleted mutated things" [to use your term] because mutations accumulate over thousands of years. There are species living now that have accumulated mutations that make them intersterile with remote ancestors. That is what you should have and do have.

There is a persistent problem with many of those who criticize evolution of trying to take it "forward" or trying to demand a "current" instance of the development of a new species. The fact is that every living species is a "current instance." The only difference among them in terms of their evolutionary history is the length of time between them and the last remote ancestor with whom they are intersterile.

[NJ_gent]

I was trying to be calm and nice while explaining a very complex subject the best way that I can, but if this is the sort of response I'm going to receive, then I'll simply not respond further. Good day to you.

[NJ_gent]

"why does evolution attempt this?"

It doesn't. The reason some people think that it does is because they don't carry it a step further. Think of it this way - you have a pool table set up with just the cue ball and the 8 ball on the table. Someone strikes the cue ball, it rolls towards the 8 ball, strikes the 8 ball, and the 8 ball goes in the pocket. The ToE attempts to explain why the 8 ball is in the pocket. It starts out by saying it rolled into the pocket. It goes on to say that it rolled into the pocket because it was struck by the cue ball. It then goes on to say that the cue ball struck the 8 ball because someone struck the cue ball.

Science stops right there, as does any evolutionist I'd respect. Is there room for ID? (as in, the 8 ball was just meant to be in the pocket?) Absolutely. ToE does a nice job of explaining the functions and output of an existing system - the pool table - with all its rules, laws, and behaviors clearly defined. What it does not and cannot do is explain why that system functions. In other words, it merely explains a system already there. Fans of ID may want to be looking at why evolution works the way that it does (assuming they have any belief in it at all - the Pope certainly does). Why do mutations occurr. How is it that this incredibly complicated and complex system has functioned in such a way that intelligent beings have formed from simple amino acids, elements, and other compounds. Who made the rules that allowed those compounds to come together when in specific configurations to form the pre-cursor to living organisms?

I think IDers too often try to look at a specific part of an organism and tack ID onto it (ie the human eye). Rather than doing that, why not take a step up and look at the rules of the game and how the pieces have been set up. When you look at how many conditions had to be perfect in order for humans to have come into being (a star of correct size and composition, a planet of correct size and composition formed at a correct distance from that star, specific compounds in specific places under specific conditions to form the beginings of living organisms, and hundreds of millions of years of conditions and mutations that have had to be 'just right' (on a cosmic scale) for the life on this planet to have formed and thrived as it has), I think it becomes far more clear that we exist seemingly against all odds. The human eye isn't the intelligent design - the fact that there's anything alive here is.

[Elsie]

...mutations accumulate over thousands of years....

Then where are they??

ET says these thungs accumulate.

Well???

Where are they??

[Elsie]

...but if this is the sort of response I'm going to receive...

I hope your hemophilia improves, because if this is an example of how thin your skin is, you'll bleed to death shortly!

---

All I did was to make a statement that says just the opposite of yours; and with the same authority.

[WildTurkey]

Where are they??

Go look in the mirror!

[Elsie]

I proposed nothing.

ET says that the cheetah had advantages over the pre-cheetah; simply because IT'S here and the other one ain't!

[Elsie]

Ooooh!

CUTE!

[WildTurkey]

CUTE!

CUTE!

Have a nice evolutionary weekend.