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. 😉