Chalk it up to coincidence if you like, but this morning I was greeted with two posts on Evolution in my news feeds. It was like seeing poison and then getting the antidote. First the poison from
John Loftus' blog.
Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature. Many of them don't have much to do with evolution - they're observations about he details of physiology, biochemistry, development, and so on - but many of them do. And every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect, supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible observations that could prove evolution untrue, we don't have a single one. We don't find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that only benefit a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific truth. - Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True
For more see the
DC Evolution Smackdown.
I was just thinking "I wonder why people don't also consider the other ways of viewing the same data that does not support their conclusions and the data that goes against their conclusions - especially concerning evolution." I find that that
Christian scientists are often belittled and ridiculed and accused of making data stretch to support the conclusions they hold but then we have scientists who support "common ancestry" doing the same thing. Here a portion of the antidote written by Luke Nix:
Now, the whole idea that I am demonstrating is not possible here, is common ancestry. There is much evidence that suggests a common ancestor (including similar genetic code). However, we are looking for an explanation that can make sense of the evidence for common ancestry AND all the evidence against common ancestry (surface scratched above).What is suggested by the similar genetic code is a "commonality". But what else could be "common" among the organisms that would explain all the evidence? A common designer. A common designer would explain everything. Many human designers use many things from previous designs in new designs (no sense in re-inventing the wheel). That would explain the common genetic code. A common designer is not limited by mutational and environmental pathways that are limited by the age of the universe and further limited by the age of whatever celestial body they formed on. The idea of a common designer explains more of the data, without inconsistency, than does common ancestry (macroevolution).
Nix's article is very good and offers some evidence that Loftus did not include in his quotation of Jerry Coyne's book. He even provides links to even more resource. I highly suggest looking at both sides and see that there is plenty enough evidence that you can just blindly accept the notion of the Universe coming into being uncaused and without direction or purpose (now that sounds like a delusion because there is verifiable evidence to the contrary).
So Remember:
Poison:
Debunking Christianity: Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne
Antidote:
Can Evolution Repeat?
