|
|
Macro-evolution (genetic migration between separate gene pools) is an unproven theory that appeals to those who don't want to include the possibility of an intelligent designer. Darwinists insist that macro and micro evolution describe "fundamentally identical processes on different time scales," but that won't magically produce fossil evidence that doesn't currently exist.
Atheism versus Theism has been around much longer than 1859. It's a disagreement between people who hold different worldviews, not between the informed and the ignorant. The disagreement has been around since earliest recorded history; "modern" man has no special claim to the contention. Evidence is available for everyone to see and read about. Through the decades since "On the Origin of Species" was published, different information pops up that refutes Darwinian macro-evolution... but, as the "religious" are often accused of doing, the Darwinists keep adjusting their interpretation of the evidence in order to hold the theory together as a scientific "fact," just like the Steady State scientists kept explaining away the mounting evidence of the Big Bang. Some examples of this phenomenon: 1) The appearance of Haeckel's faked embryonic drawings in textbooks for 140 years, during which time the scientific community was well aware they were not accurate, and deliberately misleading, yet the publishing was allowed to continue. 2) Piltdown Man survived in the public imagination more than 40 years before it was fully exposed as a fraud. 3) The debacles of Java Man (1891), Nebraska Man (1922), and Orce Man (1982) don't prove Darwinian macro-evolution isn't true, but they do a good job demonstrating how much some people would like to believe it is. 4) The Cambrian Explosion caused too much of a problem for the "tree" of Darwinian species development, so Stephen Jay Gould came up with a clever dodge called Punctuated Equilibrium, which "explains" why the fossil record does not reflect what Darwinists expect. Never mind that if Punctuated Equilibrium is true, it goes against the idea of gradual changes over larger periods of time, a cornerstone of evolution by natural selection. 5) The total lack of transitional fossils between phyla have also been a troublesome fact, so another theory was proposed to cover for that problem: small populations that broke from the main population and underwent major physical changes until they became different species, ALL just happened to occur where the climate and geology prevented the creation of fossils. 6) All sorts of interesting cosmological data that don't seem to support current wisdom for the age of the universe. There's a lot more controversy out there, but I don't have the time (or more honestly, the interest) to lay it all out for atheists who don't want to scrutinize the hard questions anyway. The information is out there; it's not my job to spoon feed anyone. There will always be convenient answers for evidential conflicts from the Darwinist side, because they operate from the assumption that Darwinist evolution between species must be true. Even the prominent mathematicians at the 1966 Wistar Symposium ended up sharing their statistical calculations with deaf ears (of the evolutionary biologists); the biologists told the mathematicians that evolution was true, so the calculations had to be wrong. Somewhat like the initial resistance to Copernicus before Kepler brought home the bacon with the help of Galileo. Even though this kind of foregone-conclusion theory-formulation is exactly what Darwinists accuse Intelligent Design theorists of doing, it doesn't seem to register that their own behavior is no different, as the original theory keeps being appended and adjusted for conflicting evidence. And for the umpteenth time, Intelligent Design and Creationism are not the same thing. Each derives its conclusions from completely different sources. Unless you ask an atheist; to them, even Christians and suicide-bombing Muslims are the same. |