REPLY #40 TO
"EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM"
are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.
My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text
and are prefaced by my initials (MB)
(R) With regard to outdated evolutionary theories I was referring to
traditional Darwinian evolutionary theory evolving into the notion of
(MB)What you're referring to as "traditional Darwinian
evolutionary theory" in this context is properly called "gradualism" and is not
the centerpiece of Darwin's work. That centerpiece would be "natural
selection". This could occur either via a gradualistic process or through the
process described by punctuated equilibrium. Therefore, it is not correct to
say that Darwin's theories have evolved into punctuated equilibrium. Darwin's
major theories are still going strong.
(R) It has never been observed that variations in the gene pool of a species
over time is anything other than just that,variatons within a species such as an
insects resistance to pesticide etc.
(MB)This is incorrect. There are many documented cases of
observed speciation. Perhaps you could check out the Talk.Origins web site
(http://www.talkorigins.org) to read several documents which present the proof
(R) For evoultion to be considered factual it needs to account for the
transition from one species of lifeform to another.
(MB)Since this has already happened, there should be no
reason for further dispute.
(R) However all known lifeforms are perfect in themselves,self contained if
you will,sharing comman design features but to conclude they therefore share a
comman heritage is theory only.
(MB)On what basis is any lifeform "perfect"? There are
hundreds of demonstrable flaws in the construction of a human being, for
(R) So long as evolution is promoted as one of several theories of origins
that is fine. To go further is just dogmatic.
(MB)Why is it "dogmatic" to present the facts? Also, you
need to understand that evolution is *not* a "theory of origins". This is a
common mistake made by people who believe that they must dispute evolution for
whatever reason. Evolution is the set of theories that describe what has
happened to life of Earth *after* it first appeared. In other words, evolution
did not produce life. Life diversifies through evolution. I really can't see
why some people believe that God and evolution are incompatible. It is possible
that evolution is God's mechanism for producing the diversity of life that we
witness daily. Evolution theories have absolutely nothing to say about whether
or not there is a God (*any* form of "God") or what that God may or may not be
capable of doing.