Posted by rpcman on August 27, 1998 at 12:56:13:
In Reply to: If a design works... posted by GaDS on August 27, 1998 at 12:28:21:
: I actually read many pro-evolutionary tomes when I majored in Biology at UCLA.
For instance?
: One non-creationist theory is that evolution of species through natural selection is a sham, and that periodic global catastrophes randomly select which organisms make it to the next round (rather than through the classic belief of species outcompeting each other).
Who supports this theory in total? I agree that global catastrophes have had a large contribution to the evolution of life on this planet, but it doesn't take the place of Darwinism and it doesn't contradict natural selection.
: In light of evidence that an asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs rather than mammals outsmarting them, this theory seems more valid than speciation by natural selection.
The two aren't in conflict. If they were, we would expect to find only those species that existed at the point of the last catastrophy in existence today. We don't.
: If a design works, stay with it.
But there is no intelligent design. As a biology major you should know this. Every living system is a horrible mess. The same could be said for the Universe with its inefficiencies and tremendous waste. I highly recommend you read The Pony Fish's Glow : And Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature.
: One strange misconception people have is that God is not practical. Why shouldn't God be practical? Why should He have had to come up with completely new designs for each creature or plant He chose to make?
An even stranger phenomenum is that people will only look at the facts with their "God eye glasses" on. Your presupposition won't allow you to objectively form a rational theory or believe in an existing theory which does fit the facts.
: ...similarity of form does not mandate progression of species...
Who said anything about "progression"? Read Full House For someone who critiques Darwinian evolution, you certainly make claims for it that it doesn't make itself. Yesterday you claimed that we should be able to witness (in real time or at least human time) dogs turning into cats, etc. Darwinism doesn't claim this. Why pretend that it does?
: Evolution (or creationism) the only theory? Only when it (and only it) can explain everything, I think.
So you have no theory? Or are you a creationist who doesn't like to say so?
[ Follow Ups ] [ Exmormon.org- Honest Inquiry Message Board ] [ FAQ ]