Evolution for real?

Today I was wandering around on the net and ended up at National Public Radio which is one way to get a taste of home since I often listen to NPR in the car wherever I happen to be living when I’m in the states.

Looking around I found the program Justice Talking and specifically this topic, “Creationism v. Evolution: Will Religion or Science Prevail?” caught my attention.

I can’t say I’m pro-creationism but I can say that I am vehemently anti *blind* darwinism. Listening to the talk above, as usual it seemed the Darwinists are the ones with a closed minds. The new way of framing the creation side is to change believing in God to believing in a designer. As such the focus has changed from a religious one (God Created the Earth) to a scientific one (What Evidence is there that supports an intelligent designer and or does not support evolution.) That seems to me a valid question.

There are in fact several discoveries and ideas that evolution cannot currently explain. The darwinistic scientists just wave their hands and claim “we’re just not smart enough yet to see how evolution handled this case but we are sure it did”. Huh?

So, looking around for some links I was especially interested in links from either side directly dealing with claims from the other side (vs just talking past each other like they usually do). I found one site at least having intelligent debate which you can check out here if you are interested.

One interesting idea I read in one article was about “irreducible complexity” which if I understand correctly is about certain things in biology that appear that they would have had to develop all at once. In otherwords, several genes would have to mutate all together at the same time in order for the particular feature to appear. To an “intelligent design” believer those features suggest intelligent design, to an “evolution” believer they suggest that we just don’t yet understand the steps involved.

An interesting analogy though is that if we see something in biology that appears to be “irreducible complexity”, in other words, something that at our current understanding *looks* like it was designed (which even darwinist biologists often use to describe what they find), those biologists, because they believe in darwinism, assume that we just can’t yet see how it could have been created through evolution. And yet, in the same way, we are searching the universe for signs of intelligent life by looking for signals that appear to be designed. In the one case we assume that designed signals are examples of intelligent design but not in the other.

In fact the author of that particlar analogy went on to posit that if someone did actually design say a micro “stinger” that allowed a one celled animal to sting its prey and fill it with deadly gas, something that has not yet been discovered naturally. If that engineered one celled animal was released into the wild and then discovered by a third party darwinist biologist, that biologist would likely never even consider that that part could have been engineered. They would search and search for a way for it to have evolved even though in fact it had been engineered.

I’m not trying to suggest that God created the earth. I am only trying to point out that evolution is far far far from a *proven* theory.

Another interesting analogy, I watched a Nova about the exploration of Venus. One thing became very clear from watching that episode. If scientists can’t actually reproduce their results then they really are just guessing. If you watch the episode, the first half shows the various *experts*, with all their observed data, telling us what Venus is like. Then, we send a probe to Venus and they turn out to ALL BE WRONG!!! The last 20 minutes of the show they then argue about how Venus got the way it is.

In the same way, since evolution is only something you can observe over long periods of time, longer than any human has been alive, we are only looking at the results and extropolating how things got that way. Until we actually build a time machine or are around for a few million years we will not be able to know if evolution works or not.

Yes I know that experiments have shown you can get certain animals/cells to mutate to adapt to special environments. What has not be shown though is that that mechanism is sufficient to turn a bacteria into a flower, tree, bunny, dog, human or even to another truely unique single celled animal over 4 billion years of mutations.

Back to the particular NPR program, I’m not sure how evolution is currently taught (or how evolutionists would like it to be taught). From my point of view it is mostly irrelavent to most topics of biology. You can learn about DNA, RNA, cell replication, reproduction and also higher level functions, respiration, circulation, digestion, muscle systems etc all without learning about evolution. That’s not to suggest that you shouldn’t learn about evolution. Clearly it’s a topic that has influenced our society in very large ways and is therefore very a important topic. But, in my opinion, it should be taught as a theory in the same way as the Big Bang is taught as a theory. At least when I was taught about it it was made clear that we really don’t know. Some scientists believe the universe is expanding and will expand into oblivion, others believe it will eventually contract and is cyclic in nature. This made it clear to me at least that it was a theory.

Also, one last random thought, just because some people might believe in “intelligent design” does not mean they therefore must believe in a “God”. There are explanations like this one from an episode of Star Trek:TNG. ;-)

  • anon_Scopes
    Creationism Sucks

    Well Gregg, I would have to say you are right that some evolutionists are a bit defensive, however you have to understand that some US school districts are on the defensive and some are actively teaching creationism besides evolution as an equal partner.  Scientists have a reason to be defensive. Creationism is NON-science..  Now I agree that evolution cannot account for everything yet, but does that mean that we throw out a theory when it can ONLY explain 100 out of 110 questions we have? Should we then throw it out, drop to our needs and pick an idol to worship?  The idea of a creator or a designer is a wonderful idea and to be honest I have always believed in some sort of higher power, but I unlike some, do not need science to back up my feelings. I think faith is faith and science is science, and I feel no need to confuse the two..

  • anon_DavidFong
    Fossil records debunks Creationism

    You wrote: 典here are in fact several discoveries and ideas that evolution cannot currently explain. The darwinistic scientists just wave their hands and claim “we’re just not smart enough yet to see how evolution handled this case but we are sure it did”. Huh?�

     < ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

    Answer: You池e right. Scientists are at least honest enough to admit what they don稚 know and then go search for possible answers. Creationists know everything already, after all they have the Bible.


    All examples sprouted by Michael Behe and his cohorts about irreducible complexity have been shown not be irreducible after all, for example his flagella example in which he omits/doesn稚 know about analogues of flagella components in other systems or even simpler forms of functional flagellae. Your assertion 鍍hat several genes would have to mutate all together at the same time in order for the particular feature to appear� is also not correct for the reasons above.


    Your assertion that 電esigned signals (from outer space) are examples of intelligent design� is not a good analogy as no evolutionist is saying that these designed signals are responsible for evolution. For your argument to be correct it would mean that the mere presence of intelligent beings on another planet equates to them being our creator.


    Your thought-experiment about the design of a micro 都tinger� is invalid unless and until you actually can design one that works. It痴 a bit like walking on water and performing miracles. If it is possible to demonstrate that you have Godly powers then this is proof that Creationism is possible. But alas, I suspect it is beyond even your powers to do so.


    Your Venus example is a good example of how scientists work: they formulate and then test their theories, discarding those that are proven to be false so they can formulate newer theories, therefore adding to and refining our sum total of knowledge. I don稚 see this behaviour from Creationists. The mere fact that scientists are often wrong does not mean that evolution is wrong and that creationism is correct. Also, what Venus has to do with evolution escapes me.


    You池e right when you say that evolution can never be 菟roven� due to the long time-frame for its workings. But evolutionists at least have convincing circumstantial evidence for their theory while Creationists do not. One only has to look at the fossil record (bearing in mind such concepts like the general trend from simplicity to complexity, and the tendency of evolution to branch rather than ladder).


    How is it that the fossils of humans or any other modern creatures are never found in the wrong places in the fossil stratigraphic record? In other words, why don稚 we find the bones of human and other modern creatures in the same strata where we find dinosaurs? Why are the fossils of modern horses never found in the same strata where we find Eohippus? (before you say anything I must warn you that Equus nevadensis had been debunked and Equus occidentalis was never found in the same strata as eohippus). [PS: It would be so easy for Creationists to demonstrate that the fossil record is false � by merely pointing out the flaws in the fossil stratigraphy � again, all their examples have been debunked � e.g. Paluxy human footprints that turned out to be dinosaurian).


    It seems to me there are two possible solutions:

    1. Evolution is correct. Ancestor forms die out and their fossils are buried in lower strata while descendant forms occupy succeeding higher strata according to the age they existed. Gaps in the fossil records occur because fossilization conditions are always poor anyway but poorer in some eras, and because fossilization is a rare event. Coexistence of ancestor forms and their 妬mmediate� descendant forms can occur, otherwise you池e saying parents cannot exist at the same time as their children (several generations removed should not coexist but closely proximal generations should be able to coexist). Coexistence of closely related but not ancestral forms should be possible, otherwise one would never be able to exist at the same time as one痴 cousins however many times removed.


    1. Creationism is correct. During the flood all creatures rush to steep inclines (shallow slopes are no good for this theory as the fossil record would be too easily jumbled up) to escape the rising water, though unsuccessfully it would seem. In this scenario creatures that appear 壮impler� merely go to die in lower ground while those that appear 杜ore complex� will reach higher ground. For this scenario to be true the following must occur:
    1. There is no viable alternative to the 電ying at different altitude of the slope� theory, meaning there is no DECEITFUL god � i.e God didn稚 purposefully bury fossils in different strata just to have some fun with humans. Also, the flood water didn稚 somehow sort the bodies not only to reverse body densities in some cases (how else would small soft-bodied fossils occur lower than huge and boney dinosaurs?) but the flood is intelligent enough to also to convey the trend of simplicity to complexity (humans and other modern creatures must have floated on top while ancient jellyfishes sink).
    2. All creatures of the same type must be content to die at the same altitude in every part of the world, e.g. all T-rexes must die in the altitude that will be mistaken by geologists to be the Cretaceous while all Stegosaurs must die in the lower Jurassic altitude � they have some sort of satellite navigation device. As the strata are only metres wide in places, it would mean that somehow, for example, Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous dinosaurs are content to die in rather narrow bands of altitudes (again � we池e talking metres). I envisage them lying down next to each other, waiting for the flood to drown them. I call this the 田emetery subdivision� theory.
    3. The geology of the slope must contain different radio-isotopes that are consistent with geological timing, e.g. the ground which T-rexes chose to die on must have ALL the radio-isotope ratios to be consistent with Cretaceous age, while only a few metres down slope the radio-isotope composition would change so that the perceived age there would be consistent with the Jurassic age.
    4. Flying birds would have to take flight at the oncoming of the flood (why walk when you can fly),then fly around until they become exhausted (while the floor deposits huge quantities of sediment) and then drop into their 殿ppropriate� position. In this I mean that early forms like archaeopteryx and confuciusornis have to fall down towards the lower slopes while modern birds fall down on the upper slopes. I call this the 堵uided missile death� theory.
    5. The same problem with flying birds also occurs with roaming sea mammals. Somehow early whales go to die where the water is deeper, while more modern whales go to die in shallow water (you don稚 find blue whale skeletons in the same layer where you find an ambulocetus or a basilosaurus nor do you find any whale remains where you find Cambrian or pre-Cambrian fossils). I call this the 堵uided torpedo death� theory.
    6. The flood has to deposit huge quantities of sediment yet somehow never disturb the places where creatures die so as to avoid jumbling up their bodies and hence fossils. 典he gentle global flood theory�.
    7. The flood deposits sediment of varying radioisotope composition so that geologists will mistake stratification to mean progression in geological time, while it actually means different radio-isotope composition. The 澱anded blanket� theory of sedimentation.
    8. No possible movements post the laying down of sediments can occur even though the sediments were laid on slopes. Otherwise, the bodies of modern forms could slip down to confuse the fossil stratigraphic record.
    9. The conditions for fossilization must be different for different parts of the slopes, otherwise we wouldn稚 have gaps in the fossil record. Also, we would be likely to find lots more fossils than we find today because the condition for fossilization must be the same in every part of the slope, unless God decides to trick us by making some parts of the slope more favourable to fossilization than others (again, we are talking distances in the metres range here).
    10. Special fossilization sites like tar-pits and caves would be impossible, because they are not found at the same altitude in all parts of the world.


    Taken as a whole, it seems to me that theory 1. is more convincing than theory 2. What do you think?

  • greggman
    I think you’re mis-intepreting me

    I didn’t say I believe in creationism.  I only said I don’t blindly believe in darwinism.  I’m not even religious.

    The venus analogy should be clear.  In one case, Venus, we had science telling us things only by observering, not being able to test.  When we actually were able to test they turned out to be COMPLETELY WRONG.  In the second case, evolution, we again have science telling us things only by observing, not being able to test.  The conclusion for me is until they can test they could be seriously wrong

  • anon_DavidFong
    Darwinism is an early form of evolution. It has since evolved into a higher being.

    Good to read you don稚 believe in creationism and my apology for mis-interpreting you. Though I must say, I don稚 understand why people should carry on about Darwinism. After all, Darwin痴 the Origin of Species was published in 1859, some 144 years ago. By way of historical context, in 1831 Faraday discovered electromagnetism, Bell痴 first telephone was in 1875, Nikolas Otto developed the gas motor in 1876, Karl Benz developed the first practical car in 1885, the Wright brothers first flew in 1903. A lot of things have happened since Darwin and we know a lot more now than we did then. The Origin of Species is not a Bible. Darwin set off a new way of scientific thinking but he wasn稚 always right. Darwin痴 gradual adaptation has now given way to new theories of how evolution works, for example punctuated equilibrium (which I admit, had its detractors). But evolution could work in many ways and PE could be but one. It is not unreasonable to suppose that since ecological change is one of the prime movers of evolution, we would see great periods of evolutionary stasis followed by short sharp bursts of evolutionary change as ecologies change due to climate change etc. That痴 why we only find very few transitional forms and Darwin痴 prediction that we would see a whole lot of transitional forms has not happened. That doesn稚, of course, mean that Creationism is correct.

    But good of you to debate this interesting issue. I wish everyone would think about it more.< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

  • IamthatIam
    The Burden of proof

     I see the alarming false trend has munipulated it’s ways onto this site as well. Creation or Evolution? Let me start off by saynig that macro-evolution is not only bad science, but it’s totally unscientific. The proposed methods to support evolution can be likened to swiss cheese………… It’s full of holes! In macro-evolution, time is the hero in the plot of life. Time/chance/pressure. There is a natural law that all life as we know it must adhere to, and morover, it’s constituants in the ralm of science must follow. The 2nd immutable Law of Thermodynamics or (Entropy) is a crushing blow to the “theory” of evolution. Evolution would purport that all life is increasing in complexity due to natural selection. However, the Entropy is the system that proves that all life and material is decreasing in complexity continually. Life itself is dwindling down. The fact that it could either increase or decrease is an evidence in itself that ALL life has a beggining. The touch of design is all around, though we neglect this fact all the while. NOTHING has ever come to be without first having a Designer. Am I to look at a car in all it’s intriqacy to assume that a tornado ripped through a scrapyard and the end result was a perfectly engineered vehicle??????? Or that it was built the way it was intended by it’s creator? Look at something like genitalia and how perfectly they compliment each other and tell me that chaos just happened to get it right! The pattern of chaos is that it tends be just that….. Chaotic! Not ever lending itself to pattern or rationalization, yet everything in life is orderly and seemingly created in harmonious balance. How can you escape something as simple as this? Some scientists have been studying fruitflies, a very simple creature on the molecular level, for over 80 years. The lifespan of a fruitfly is not even worth mentioning. With that in mind they have observed them to watch with scrutiny if any changes occur. They have breed the equivilent of over 160 human generations. Think how many that is. You, your father, your grandfather….. That is just 3 generations and how much time has elapsed? Humans are very complex in compari/son to the fruitfly. The generations of fruitflies is a number that could not be accurately counted, but the estimation is nearing the millions! Millions of generations and no change to their DESIGN! Any flies that were  //born with a genetic deformity, died, and certainly didn’t thrive, and most definately didn’t form into an entirely new specie. Yet, the mutation method is the only mechanism to support the theory of evolution. I have limitless reasons why I do not support evolution. these are just a few reasons. I hope you wil enjoy what I’ve written and explore more plausible scenarios for the existamce of life.

  • toq
    Ignorance is no excuse for bashing science

    I agree with anon_Scopes. Creationism shows us that there are religious people who want to believe in the ‘poof’ theory, and a creature exists. If you read through the first comment from IamthatIam, he’s obviously just as defensive as a scientist believing in Evolution.

    I love how he said, “does a tornado rip through a junk yard an make a new car?” Does a new species of bird magically appear on a tree, *poof* creationism!

    I’m sorry but being rasied religious I have a horrid distaste for the ignorance is spews into the world. Look at it this way, if you feel someone is “designing” our world, isn’t it possible that he doesn’t want humans and other creatures to become overwhelmed by a sudden change and does it over time?

    Isn’t it possible BOTH methods are possible? I’m sorry but thinking of a being or entity that magically changes things instantly or creates a species on the fly without mapping out it’s existance is ignorance.

    I believe something is up there, but religious people seem more likely to never see what it is due to their “I’m right and your not” kiddy attitude.

    I believe religion equals money & power, which is why they are fighting science all they can, to take control over the mindless humans willing to follow religion and it’s mind numbing practices.

    The biggest issue you will have with a religious nut is trying to comprimise, they are always “100% true” (notice I didn’t say correct). Everything they say is true and their religion is the true one. I hope all religions are wrong, they do more evil than good.

  • MSaadprofessoratburkelyuniversity

    I cannot belive anyone could possibley believe in evolution. It is unlogical and defies the second law of therodynamics, the law of conservation of information, and quite frankly we have tried and tried again at the university and life cannot be formed from ‘dead’ chemicals. sorry evolutionists but look around you at life, do you really think it all came from an atom, do you really think your body is worth $5.00 of chemicals and thats all, think again!!!

  • DirtyBird

    Do you know what your talking about? That burden goes to Abiogenesis. Evolution is the change in a populations inherited traits from generation to generation. That is it. That is a fact of life just like gravity and Atoms. The mechanisms used in Evolution are a theory. In science the  theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirica observation. This mechanism is Natural Selection. If you don’t know something don’t act like you do. No it does not defy the second law of Thermodynamics. The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. The Earth is not a closed system. If that were true then we would not have plant life because are energy comes from the SUN. Evolution does not have a problem with the Law of information.

    1. Information theory does sort of have a principle of degradation, but it is only applicable in certain situations (which evolution isn’t one of). It implies, essentially, that information change is irreversible: information gets more and more different from how it started out, and the more it gets changed, the harder it is to tell how it started out. In a communication or information storage system, where the goal is to transmit or replay the original message intact, change is necessarily bad, so this corresponds to degradation. In evolution, change is not necessarily bad, so this is not a principle of degradation. Have a good day

  • Ed
    Evolution is a FACT

    The creationist side started this Intelligent design, not the evolutionist.

    Evolution is a FACT, all the data proves it. The mechanism of these facts it where the theory comes in. Don’t confuse this.

  • IHateStupidPeople
    Death to Creationists.

    Creationists should all be herded on an island and then napalmed. Say what you will about Evolution being full of holes, but here’s one thing you cannot wave away: the Earth is billions of years old. that is a fact. Not an educated guess, a fact. The world isn’t 6,000 years old, and yes you CAN believe in God in think creation is bull. At least that’s what the official policy of the CATHOLIC CHURCH is

  • greggman
    It’s NOT about Creationism

    The original post is poorly worded. I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION DAMIT!

    The point is though, Evolution is not the same as Gravity. Gravity can be tested. Evolution can not (not until we build a time machine or until we are around a lot longer that current human history). For evolution all we can do is look at how things appear to be and come up with ideas on how they got that way. Evolution appears to be the way that it works. Now, go look and every other study based on observation alone (no experiments) and see how often it’s wrong. Two good examples are Dinosaurs which seem to have new theories every few years and the example I pointed out above about Venus where all theories turned out to be wrong.

    I’m NOT defending creationism. I believe evolution is most likely true. But I object to the claims it’s on the same level as gravity or atoms. While you could argue those are theories as well, they are experimentally testable. Evolution is not and that makes them different. I know that the vocal scientists are mostly responding to the troublesome creationists but still, it’s frustrating to here them go overboard with their claims. They are supposed to be the rational ones.

  • Trond
    How nice.

    In response to Ihatestupidpeople.:

    Ah the good ol’ Herd-all-the-people-i-don’t-like-on-to-an-Island-theory, nice solution…

    To Greggman:

    I don’t agree. We have theories about Gravity as well, and we can test that it works, but not exactly how it works (we don’t even know what it is almost, except for its obvious effect…) Also, evolution more than [i]appears[/i] to be the way it works, as the circumstantial evidence is piled mile high, and the end result is bound to be “some form of evolution”. My point: Why set the bar so high for evolution? Noone is expecting this level of evidence for anything else, so why evolution? This kind of doubtmaking, “evolution can only be tested with a time mashine” type of reasoning, is redicilous. If you go down that road nothing can REALY be tested at all, see?

    Hope that makes sense :/

  • anonymousTroy

    oh geez Gregg, I either just found this or blocked it out right after I read it years ago. I hope the latter.

    “What has not be shown though is that that mechanism is sufficient to turn a bacteria into a flower, tree, bunny, dog, human or even to another truely unique single celled animal over 4 billion years of mutations”

    This may be true — there may be a STNG-like entity guiding these mutations, but you’re running into Occam’s Razor here and/or bringing up the logical fallacy of arguing from incredulity.

    We do have tons of rock-solid DNA sequencing evidence supporting common descent of present-day species, eg. it is a scientific fact the bunny, dog, and human all share a common ancestor population in the distant past.

    Where ID falls down is proposing there’s some sort of intelligent design force directing this radiation, when from all appearances random variation, since there is lots about our physiological development that is anything but intelligently designed.

    ID is just a way for people who want to fight the secularization of schools to bring God back into the classroom. You have fallen, or started to fall at least, for their BS.

  • greggman
    why is evolution the exception?

    No one is expecting this evidence from anything else?

    Hmmm, with Gravity I can drop something and see it fall. With evolution I can’t force something to evolve (well, so far)  We DO expect evidence from these things.

    You guys are all getting hung up on the ID BS. Like I said a few posts ago, this is not about ID, it’s about comparing apples to apples.

    1) We had no actual experience
    2) We made theories based on observations alone (no experiments)
    3) We actually went
    Result: our theories were wrong

    1) We have no actual experience
    2) We make theories based on observations alone (no experiments)
    3) We can’t actually go
    Result: our theories were wrong (or they change every 10-20 years)

    1) We have no actual experience
    2) We make theories based on observations alone (no experiments)
    3) We can’t actually go check
    Result: ???

    1) We have lots of actual experience
    2) We make theories based on experiments
    3) We can actually test them
    Result: The basic theory of gravity works. It allows us to compute how to get a probe to Saturn for example.

    Again, I’m in no way saying that evolution is not true. I believe it in general must be true. What I’m saying is it’s not true on the same level as gravity and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise. If the theories in most other fields in which you can’t actually experiment have turned out to be wrong in so many ways what makes evolution the exception to that rule?

  • anonymousTroy

    gregg, evolution is similar to plate tectonics theory . . . we have collected observations, proposed possible mechanics, have run simulations, made predictions and tested them ,etc. but have yet to see any continents collide with each other!

    I understand where you’re coming from wrt scientists being overly dogmatic, since the theory of plate tectonics was in fact opposed by the scientific community for years (if not decades) given their basic assumptions that the continents were “too big” to move etc.

    But science does not concern itself with “truth”, it concerns itself with possible explanations of how the world works; plate tectonics explains the evidence better than competing theories so we believe it is a valid theory, or a “true” decription of physical processes and natural history.

    I for one would laugh my ass off if there turns out to be some ST:NG-like force silently directing all these seemingly random mutations over the eons, but as I said above Occam’s Razor is in play here.

    The apparent biochemical mechanisms of evolution were found decades after the theory of natural selection was first proposed . . . as a fellow game designer I’m surprised you apparently lack an understanding of (or faith in, LOL) the basic engine of random mutation + fitness selection feedback cycle, eg the creation of natural behaviors in AI via GA:

    So my question to you, is what claim by natural, non-directed evolution do you think isn’t supported by observation? Please throw out any claims made by IDers, especially the Discovery Institute since their claims are full of crap; they recently had their ass handed to them in court:

    (not that the courtroom is a proper venue for scientific enquiry, but I’d like to assert that the DI is a front org for really crap neocon BS, and ID is just one line of work for them)

    But beyond the specific claims of ID, ID falls down simply because this supposed design intelligence is demonstrably really retarded when we look at the genome. . . I’m no biochemist, from all appearances things certainly do look quite junked up and “randomly” mutated at the genetic level.

    We know that evolution has had trillions (or more!) of generations, trillions and trillions of parallel trials to work its (apparent) magics, gregg. IDers like the DI are looking for God in the gaps of the theory, and the claimed gaps I’ve seen are either bogus (like their assertion that the photosensitive eye couldn’t have developed without supernatural intervention) or minutae about flagella.

    ID is an unnecessary complication, and I think you’re wrong for asserting that the vast vast majority of evolutionary biologists are being dogmatic about this. Subtract out the religious among evolutionary biologists and I doubt you’ll even find a quorum of dissenters on this.

  • greggman


    The point above has nothing to do with ID.

    When I brought up the Venus example, I wasn’t suggesting that because the scientists were wrong therefore Venus was made out of cheese. All I’m saying it their theories based on observation alone turned out to be wrong.

    So, since evolution is also totally based on observation alone it’s not unreasonble to think they might not have it all 100% correct.