“The article deserved to be Xed out. Actually, its better than this article deserved.”
This is typical of the naturalist position: Squash all debate, assume a naturalistic view of the world and the universe, and attack the character of the person with the opposing view rather than discuss the evidence presented. The posted article is a prime example of this - the “striking-out” of every word the Intelligent Design position given in the article instead of dealing with the points discussed. Talk about censorship and dogmatism!
The problem with naturalistic evolutionists is that they assume that because there are demonstrable variations, or evolution, within a specie (micro-evolution) that this somehow proves that there is evolution between kinds (macro-evolution).
Micro-evolution is not the controversial issue - even the strictist of Creationists accept this type of evolution. No one is arguing that there is never any “change” in the universe. Rather, it is the macro-evolution that is the controversy - that naturalistic evolution occurs between kinds (inorganic to organic, plant to fish, fish to mammal, etc.). Naturalistic evolutionists always assumes that because mirco-evolution occurs (which no one disputes) that this automatically proves that macro-evolution also occurs.
Naturalistic evolutionists philosophically assume a naturalist view of the universe - not because they can scientifically prove macro-evolution occurs or that matter always existed and had no beginning, but because they want to rule out the possiblity of a Creator/Designer. They claim that since the idea of the universe being created by some Being is untestable scientifically, it is therefore outside the realm of science to allow for that possibility. But the problem is, they do the very same thing in regard to naturalistic explanations of the universe - their explanations (theories) are also untestable scientifically. Yet, somehow their philosophical assumptions are “scientific”.
Believe what you want, but don’t avoid the debate.
But it isn't evolution, that's the problem; it's only flexibility in the obvious design of the creature. The flexibility is also part of the design, because the designer saw the end from the beginning.
Micro-evolution is not the controversial issue - even the strictist of Creationists accept this type of evolution. No one is arguing that there is never any change in the universe. Rather, it is the macro-evolution that is the controversy - that naturalistic evolution occurs between kinds (inorganic to organic, plant to fish, fish to mammal, etc.). Naturalistic evolutionists always assumes that because mirco-evolution occurs (which no one disputes) that this automatically proves that macro-evolution also occurs.
Actually many creationists "believe" in macro-evolution.
Here is an example:
John Woodmorappe, in his article The non-transitions in human evolution--on evolutionists terms agrees that a variety of fossil species, including:
This is a species-level change (macro-evolution). But for it to happen as Woodmorappe suggests, the change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all (what they call macro-evolution).
Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man--all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
But now we see a creationist has not only proposed macro-evolution, but sees it occurring several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!
You mention "kinds" in your post. (By the way, "kinds" is a religious, not a scientific term.) Stultis did a good post on this yesterday:
By definition "macroevolution" means evolution above the species level; "microevolution" then being evolution below the species level. Therefore any evolution that breaks the species barrier -- i.e. that results in a new species emerging somehow -- is macroevolution by definition.
The problem here is that virtually ALL modern antievolutionary creationists reject the 19th Century position of "fixed" species. They concede, even eagerly, that in all probability whole Families often represent a single "created kind," within which species diversified by some essentially natural processes. The paradigmatic example is the "horse" kind. By this they mean to include the entire Family of Equidae. That's horses, asses, burros, zebras, the whole kit and kaboodle. That's dozens of species, most with some major genetic distinctions, e.g. differing chromosome numbers and arrangements in most cases.
IOW creationists say they don't accept "macroevolution," but in fact they do. Their rejection of fixed species entails that they do.
So, it looks like many creationists not only "believe" in macro-evolution, but have it going at a much faster rate than scientists posit. And in one case, in the opposite direction!