>On the side of evolutionists, they at least have some form of theory,
>able to be critiqued. This is at odds certainly with the young
>earth creationists - evolutionary theory is certainly less
>problematic than a theory that holds to a young earth and a very recent
>creation of life.
No, this isn't accurate at all. Evolutionary theory is AT LEAST as
problematic as creation, making this point moot. How could any explanation
(i.e., creation) be MORE problematic than one which cannot establish a
compelling case without substantial reliance upon speculation (that would
be, evolution)?
>Evolution as a theory has its problems, but whatever the _true_ explanation
>of our origins is, it must, at least in a crude sense, resemble evolution.
Here we go again. Phillips says that ANY explanation of origins *must*
resemble evolution. No it must'nt! Folks, there is no reason to COMPEL us
to see the evidence in an evolutionary configuration. What *seems* to be an
evolutionary way of viewing the origin and development of life simply
doesn't make it so! I know this is a difficult thing for many who wrestle
with this issue, however, the *GAPS* in the evidence are what have been used
as the basis for promoting an evolutionary view of the evidence, NOT the
evidence itself. The "missing link" presupposes that there IS a missing
link, even though the evidence doesn't really require us to see things that
way. How hysterical! This slick little technique effectively sucks us into
the notion that we are now on a hunt for something we expect to find. Oh,
we KNOW it's out there. It MUST be out there, somewhere. Why? Because
someone came up with the IDEA that it *must* be. So, as in the story I
submitted the other day about the rats in the maze, we are all in a hunt to
find what we expect to find. And because we expect to find it or see it,
guess what? WE WILL! Such an approach is seriously flawed.
The alleged *gaps* in the evidence have been imaginatively and conveniently
bent into an evolutionary story. We have no *evidence* that these
speculative views are reliable. There is nothing which compels us to accept
those views, save our predispositions. That being the case, we need not
conclude that whatever the *true* explanation of origins is, it *must*
resemble evolution.
Kevin
Kevin Wirth, President
Wirth & Associates
1420 NW Gilman Blvd. #2563
Issaquah, WA 98027-7001
(206) 391-3698 PHONE