The truth is that no amount of evidence will convince those who believe that the species were all created by God – because they value faith which requires belief even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Horses Scientific name “Equus Caballus” and mules “Equus asinus x caballus ” is still part of the “Equidae” family.

The flycatcher’s scientific name is “Monarcha castaneiventris megarhynchus” while the other is “Monarcha castaneiventris ugiensis” and while I agree that there are differences I can’t help but notice that they are both still part of the “Monarchidae” family.

An interesting article Study Catches 2 bird populations as they split into separate species. Looks like they are showing macro-evolution currently being observed in birds.

One other point — in terms of can’t mate – that does not need to be true – horses and mules can mate – many seperate species can mate and some of their offspring may even be fertile.

Evolution says that there was chaos and somehow over billions of years(sounds like my sister’s fairy tales) order formed,

That’s not what evolution says. That sounds more like a religious creation myth.

why is it that some Professors become very angry when you ask how it happened?

It might be in how you’re asking. What do you ask? And are you asking because you want to know the answer? Or do you have an ulterior motive that’s showing through?

Andy

Also there’s irreducibly complex eyes, teeth, flagellum, and vision and all the senses connections to the brain. The problem with biology right now is there’s so much valid criticism and it’s brushed off by handwaving because you aren’t allowed to violate the paradigm.

It does concern me that tax payers, regardless of their faith, are forced to only finance research to try to prove there is no designer, due to Hugo Black’s definition of “seperation of church and state”. Creation scientists (yes, there is a growing number of scientists with as much formal education as anyone else) have to rely on their own pockets and private donations. I assumed in the beginning that orthodox scientists had creditable evidence for their theories, but the claims many make insulted my intelligence and that is what started me on my fascinating educational journey.

Some scientists were angry and condecending about the movie “Expelled”. They completely missed the point. Mr. Stein was making a point about the lack of academic freedom in our schools that receive tax payer money and the discussion of origins is the most profound example. I heard him say in an interview that he believes there are very intelligent people who believe in evolution (macro-evolution, of course)and like everyone else, he does not know.

Well folks, please enjoy your research. I am changing to a study that may result in something more useful or productive as no one in my family or anyone else I encounter seems interested in listening to any view other that those they have always had or their preferences.

Bob

yes, it is trying to apply human conclusions to a non-human being.

However, so is calling it benevolent or anything else. If we’re going to adhere to such standards of not being able to judge the alleged actions of a creator, then there is no way to tell whether it is actually good or bad. In the case of Christianity, how would one tell whether God was the good guy and not Satan?

We can either judge a god or not judge a god… there’s no such thing as “we can judge that God’s good but not bad”.

Also, when we make statements about how the Christian God isn’t omni-benevolent because He lets this and that happen, doesn’t that seem to be trying to reach a humanized conclusion of a non-human being?

I was so eager to ask my question about people who seek knowledge on the question of origins that I hastily dispatched a letter, not even taking the time to read my own letter. Unlike our president during his campaign, I do know the proper use of a and an. It is no reflection on his intelligence or education (I would guess he got it from his parents before entering school). I believe my question would more appropiately be: If we have a preference, do we allow it to interfere with our sincere quest for knowledge. I am more than willing to accept that I am just a refined monkey, if it is a proven fact, but I am not convinced of it based on verifiable evidence.

I have more thoughts to share, but they are based upon a premise that it takes as much, if not more, faith in the unknown to believe that the universe is so finely tuned for man and is that way as a result of an undirected explosion of a “cosmic egg”. I should have stressed “undirected”. I have thought that we could evolved to conform to that fine tuning instead of the other way around, but that would not explain such “handy” things, such as a water table, enough oil and coal in the ground to fuel the world until we come up with better things, trees to supply building supplies for our shelters, again, until we develope better things and I may add, the sooner the better for all the above, and many, many other “conveniences” (spelling?}

I believe “Intelligent Design” is worthy of consideration and I personally would not even pretend to have the ability to try to describe a possible designer, but my hunch is that a possible designer does not supervise the day-to-day goings on in the world. That was Einstein’s theory and I believe he was a much more remarkable scientist than Darwin, but not for that reason. I recognize that I could be completely wrong.

Again, thanks and I will continue to keep my feelers out for proof of macro-evolution.

ps Did anyone see the TV program on “National Geographic” about a researcher who claims to believe that viruses are the missing link to account for our evolution. Always looking for a missing linc when there may not be one.

I agree that the possibility of the question leading to an infinite regress does not make the question invalid. On the other hand I believe given the information we have, asking the question “who created the creator” does in fact lead to an infinite regress since god alone could be the sufficient cause of the universe, and if god had the power to created the universe it would not be hard to believe that such a being was not created and has always existed and always will.

Hey Bob,

I like your question about whether people prefer that the universe came about by random chance or by design. I think that the answer to this question is where the majority of the bias in this discussion amongst the scientific community lays. People have a desire to be correct, especially if religion is involved, they want to believe that their soul can be saved.

I think I would rather believe that there is a designer(whichever one that may be). The reason for this is that it would provide more meaning and purpose for life, especially if that designer was a god who wanted a relationship with his people. Despite my desire for evidence of a created universe I attempt to be objective in my studies; obviously complete objectivity is not possible, but I think that it should be aimed for.

As I continue to learn I see more evidence for Intelligent Design, but I am still studying.

Thanks for the open minded, respectful conversation!

Something I am failing to understand is why, when we are genuinely seeking nothing but scientific knowledge, as I am, and when considering the possibility of intelligent design, why folks try to define a possible designer. Can we not just leave it at that and leave speculation about a possible designer’s motives, if it even has emotions and, as someone pointed out that the evidence of a benevolent designer is not present because of, for one example given: childhood cancer. Cancer effects people of all ages, but for the sake of facts, speculating as to a possible designer being malevolent is outside the field of scientific knowledge.

Also, there is an considerable and important difference between micro and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is and has been an observable fact throughout history and I have never heard of anyone questioning or debating that fact. Macro-evolution (changes that involve an increase in genetic information) is questionable and also necessary for the evolution of man from the “same descendant as the apes”, whatever that is. Some say life from chemicals in the oceans to a single-celled organism and on up the evolutionary tree to man.

Professor Darwin observed micro-evolution and made interesting, but unimportant notes on that subject and then guessed that, given enough time that macro-evolution is possible. It seems that many people have adopted an attitude that given enough time that anything is possible and cling to anything to support the oldest universe possible. I seem to be the only student of this subject so far that has no preference if things came about by random chance (which I believe takes as much faith in the unknown as scientists who consider the possibility of a designer) or by design.

What I stated above is so simple that I am afraid I must be overlooking something obvious. Please don’t worry about embarrassing me by explaining what I am missing.

Thank you folks very much and I look forward to all respectful discussions on the evolution/intelligent design study.

Bob

I really appreciate you taking the time and effort to answer my question. As I may or may not have stated previously, I have made the study of origins my “night job” for several years and have made some disturbing observations. I don’t know if anyone is interested in my conclusions, but if so I will share them sometime.

Again, thanks.

Bob

Just because asking the question can, but does not necessarily, lead to an infinite regression does not make the question invalid, it just makes the answer more difficult.

Bob,

I would prefer a designed universe if it were designed by an omni-benevolent being — No childhood cancer, no cruelty, poverty, starvation, disease, war, terrorism. Unfortunately the evidence points to a universe that wasn’t designed by an omnipotent omnibenevolent God.

David

Thank you very much, Bob

ps I don’t.

The origin of life, as stated above, is a different topic. Perhaps I can address it in a different article. Many opponents of evolution claim that a God must have created life and all the species. However, aren’t they just dodging an even bigger issue – who created the creator? Isn’t it easier to imagine a universe in which something as imperfect as E. coli either always existed or spontaneously arose than one in which an omnipotent, omniscient being came about spontaneously?

The point that evolutionists always try to dodge is this: even if macro-evolution could be proven, when it all began, where did that first cell or strand of DNA come from?

I think what you perceive as dodging is something else, perhaps indifference. I say that because it’s not relevant to this conversation (or any conversion about debating evolution): what does the origin of life have to do with the evolutionary process? Why is an answer needed for the origin of life in order to accept evolutionary theory?

IF the article and studies are correct and a strand of Ecoli is now able to survive where no Ecoli survived before… it’s still Ecoli. It’s not changing a tadpole into a monkey into a human.

First, your idea of evolution is incorrect in your tadpole-monkey-human comparison. That’s not how it works. Assuming you do understand the process, though, and were just being glib, you may want to read more about macroevolution. The “it’s still e. coli” argument is not true – macroevolution is a change at a level above the species, not below.

Also, IF the article and studies are correct and a strand of Ecoli is now able to survive where no Ecoli survived before… it’s still Ecoli. It’s not changing a tadpole into a monkey into a human.