> On Sun, 4 Apr 1999 16:00:28 -0600 "Kevin O'Brien"
> <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >However, evolution in its most basic form is simply change; the idea that
> >the universe is not static but is fluid. This basic form makes no claim
as
> >to what kind of change is occuring, only that it will occur. So rather
than
> >demanding or even predicting an increase in complexity, evolution can in
> >fact include decreases in complexity, cyclical change, pendulum (back and
forth)
> >change, as well as more.
>
> This is exactly the point that the YECs make in critiquing the theory of
> evolution - that whatever chance creates, chance destroys. As I see it,
> with a purely naturalistic process, you have no means of preserving
> "progress" (in the sense of increasing complexity).
As a matter of logic, there is no such thing as chance. We defer to chance
when we don't understand all the variables.
Evolution absolutely requires increases in complexity if it is to account
for the appearance of any new kind of animal. (Variation that is not an
increase in complexity is of no relevance to the Evolution/Creation debate
and does nothing to explain the origins of species) As a matter of logic,
and without God/intelligence, the only kind of universe we can have is one
that is running down. Without intelligence, you don't even have a means of
making progress, let alone preserving it.