Last Update: 13 Feb 00

Return to "Evolution vs. Creationism" essay


Absolutely. And all consistently and coherently explainable by science with no need to resort to anything supernatural.
(R) This is your first problem. The first "common ancestor."
(MB) This is not a problem which falls into the realm of evolution. Evolution is not a theory of origins. It is not a theory which describes how life on Earth first developed. Evolutionary theories only are concerned with the divergence and development of life *after* it first appeared. Any questions of origins that are raised as objections to evolution only demonstrate a lack of knowledge about what evolution is all about.

(R) Please explain how ribonucleic acid groups have formed a designer or at least a stimulating agent. Please explain the precursor of prokaryotes and how they formed from inorganic substances. Please explain how the necessary organic substances come into existence without the necessary life forms.
(MB) None of these are questions about evolution. You are addressing issues of biology and biochemistry. If you want to discuss them, that's fine, but they are not arguments against evolution. As far as evolution is concerned, these things could have natural origins or could have been created by some supernatural entity. Once again, evolution is only concerned with how things progressed *after* life first began.

(R) Where did sugar come from? Or any glucose with covalent bonds which can be broken for energy? Enzymes? RNA? The first protoplasm?
(MB) See above. None of this falls into the realm of evolution, either.

Absolutely. Realizing, of course, that "creation" can be through natural processes and does not depend on anything else.
(R) These natural processes are observable. In is only when they are falsely induced beyond observation that theory causes science itself to suffer.
(MB) Where are the false inductions? Also, isn't the idea that "God did it all" an induction in its own right? Not to mention that it is an unreasonable induction without evidence that God exists or that "God did it" in lieu of some other deity.

No, it is the Creationists who do that. They *have* to do that since they can't build it out of facts, evidence or reason.
(R) This is general, but perhaps warranted from the start. The problem comes when you misrepresent assumptions of creationists and the observations made by them which corroborate their deductions.
(MB) What Creationist assumptions have been misrepresented? Isn't "God did it" their one and only claim? Which observations corroborate this claim?

Absolutely. That's what science does all the time. Science is questioned by every experiment, observation, test, prediction and equation. How does religion question itself? How have you questioned what your religion preaches? Have you examined alternative religious beliefs to see if they might just be true?
(R) Darwinian evolutionists do not question limits to speciation and common ancestry.
(MB) I didn't ask you what "Darwinian evolutionists" do or don't question about evolution. I asked you what *you* question about your religion and its ideas? May I assume by your non-answer that you question nothing at all about what you believe?

Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.5 .......... Last Update: 13 Feb 00
Go to next reply

Return to "Evolution vs. Creationism" essay

Back to Philosophy page