Posted by Xavier on March 03, 1999 at 09:20:53:
In Reply to: Your link makes creation scientists look like scholars. . . posted by blue on March 02, 1999 at 23:42:11:
: You have posted this link several times now, and seem quite pleased with it. Have you ever actually looked at the fact that it proves nothing? It makes two claims, and supports neither:
: 1) The human eye retains flaws only explainable through evolutionary theory. He cites "six muscles when three would do." So what? What is this supposed to prove?
:
: 2) All the various stages of the development of the human eye are observable in the animal kingdom. Is there any evidence that one stage ever followed from another? What evidence is there of any sequence?
: Couple this with the fact that most scientists now agree that speciation occurred very rapidly, and Zindler's article becomes, as you call it, wishful thinking.
: Stick with proven science when being scientific. Zindler's theories are no better than what the Creation scientists are publishing, to the embarrassment of us all.
(Xavier)...that the article attempts to poke holes in the tired and false notion that the development of the human eye somehow directs that intelligent design MUST have been involved. If that is so, I have often wondered why other animals have been given superior designed eyes. Could you site me the reference where you found that MOST scientists agree that speciation occurred rapidly? And what is the time frame of "rapidly"? Five thousand years, five hundred thousand, five million, or even fifty million? I do not believe there is such a thing as "proven science". There is only accepted science. Nothing in science can be proved absolutely; all is falsifiable. Scientific theories are not just "notions" tossed about by a few individuals. They are supported by large amounts of evidence vs. what creationists refer to as creationists "theories". It would take some doing to make creationists look like scholars. Read some of the material from Carl Baugh and Kent Hovind and you realize that it would take a comparison with the banjo playing boy in "Deliverance" to make these hucksters look even remotely like scholars.