I just came back to see what happened to the passenger pigeon i released into this debating chamber! This has proved to be a fascinating discussion, and I greatly admire the open-mindedness of Sunwaiter, and the gentlemanly behaviour of all involved, but for myself I remain inclined towards the evolutionary view because to me it seems plausible, even if there are gaps in understanding the mechanism in detail, and also because there is a certain elegance and economy about it, it reflects the way nature is ruthless, amazingly wasteful, forever changing; whereas the creationist viewpoint advance by Robert and Andrew is, I think, the fruit of a religious mind-set which values permanence more than change. Their view has at least four assertions ...
(i) there's no such thing as evolution
(ii) there have always been a fixed number of permanent species during the history of the earth
(iii) any mutation must inevitably be for the worse
(iv) there's no such thing as extinction of a species
I sincerely believe all four of these may be wrong, but (iv) is surely the most demonstrably wrong of the lot! Faced with with all the perils and incertainties of life, why on earth shouldn't species become extinct? The only way to prevent it would be to have some sort of continuous divine intervention. The passenger pigeon is a good test case, because, unlike the Dodo, it became extinct quite recently (almost in living memory), and as well as the famous stuffed specimen, photographs also exist. I can't believe that 19th century observers were total fools - they were in no doubt that it was a separate species. It used to exist in vast numbers and now it is nowhere to be seen. This seems to me to be a clear case of a species becoming extinct! The counter argument is really based on an extraordinary sequence of logic
- we do not believe in extinction of species
- the passenger pigon is extinct
- therefore the passenger pigeon was not a species
and likewise for the Dodo, the Mammoth, and so on. The jury will take some convincing on this one ....
Thanks for your post Jhnbrbr,
I'd like to repeat (just in case you haven't read it already) that nobody here is trying to 'prove' creation has happened. I, Andrew and others here have said repeatedly that creation is of course an act of faith. May I repeat this once again ? Our argument is quite different. We are saying the pagan myth of organic evolution is a persistent error of our civilization and that the falsely named 'evolution science' is today so riddled with contradictions, paradoxes, huge gaps in its rhetoric and downright errors (these at odds with the discoveries of science itself) that it should no longer be taught in our schools and colleges. A fair and honest appraisal of the subject by anyone would conclude that Darwinism and 'evolution' as a whole is a baseless invention and a completely false dogma of philosophy. Having eliminated this error we would be left with no alternative but to accept that life is truly miraculous and that the history of living things is NOT the result of fortuitous accidents, but is the result of Order, this reflected in all we know of it.
My second point is this. Darwin himself believed life here on Earth had been divinely created. You can read this for yourself in the final pages of his 'Origin of Species'. He wrote -
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
(Charles Darwin - 'Origin of Species')
And there are today even those who call themselves 'creationists' who believe in evolution.
Since all of the above are true it's clear that I am not trying to 'prove' creation. That would be scientifically impossible. But the confusion and misunderstanding on this subject is largely due to falsehoods being taught as science. Chief of which is the so-called 'theory of evolution' itself. In almost every single respect.
Evolution, you see, is really NOT a theory. It's a paradigm, a view of living things and their history born of a dogmatic philosophy. 'Evolution', they say, MUST have happened. Therefore we, as 'evolutionists' will win brownie points to show that a mechanism for species evolution exists. Such is their argument and it is of course entirely circular. The neutral reader can judge from themselves whether evolution 'theory' is true. And that's just fine. But the facts of science and the discoveries of scientists are clear enough and they are here under discussion.
You list 4 assertions -
(i) there's no such thing as evolution
(ii) there have always been a fixed number of permanent species during the history of the earth
(iii) any mutation must inevitably be for the worse
(iv) there's no such thing as extinction of a species
Thanks for doing this. Yes, they are a fair reflection of what is being said, except for the first. Perhaps you can change the first one to say there is no such thing as the evolution of species. But that species can and do change their forms and may simultaneously exist in countless varieties is, of course indisputably true. Nobody doubts this and this has been known for thousands of years. But there is no such thing as the 'evolution of new species' and no species has evolved from any other. For the evolutionist still cannot tell us about this alleged process of 'evolution'. He simply insists there is one. And thus they go round and round in circles without ever giving us the grounds on which they believe in it. Nor has any evolutionist managed to produce survivable evidence that 'evolution' has even happened. In short, the dogmatism comes not from the critics of evolution theory but from evolutionists themselves.
Anyway,
Yes, I maintain (and the facts support it very well) that the number of species in the world is really the same today as when the first fossils were formed. I also believe the number of chemical elements we see today in nature is the same as it has always been in nature. So you see that here too in the Periodic Table of the elements is a fixed system of order with countless examples of variety of forms. On which the science of Chemistry is based. The same is true of biology.
To suggest there is a mythical system occuring in nature called 'evolution' requires us to believe in a force acting in nature for which there is not an actual shred of evidence. After 150 years of Darwinism nobody can tell us what this force is, nor even how it supposedly operates. For, at the present time, they say it operates through mutations - rare events which are, without exception, deleterious on species and which even nature reverses. The verdict of science on 'evolution theory' is loud and clear. It's nonsense. And it was nonsense even in the 19th century. Blown to pieces by the discoveries of the Laws of Heredity, by genetics, by close study of the fossil record and of living nature.
So, yes, nature consists of fixed and permanent species in this world, these interacting in wonderful ways with each other in a marvellous and orderly system of nature and being, to some extent, dependent on one another. The evidence for which is overwhelmingly obvious to anyone who looks at it. The evidence new chemical elements are being 'evolved' and made 'extinct' simply does not exist. Nor is there evidence that phenomenally complex living beings, species, are continually evolving and being made extinct.
3. Yes, mutation is disadvantageous to organisms, to species. Any error in the transmission of genetic information is, obviously, disadvantageous. It is almost ridiculous to argue otherwise. For the 'message' being transmitted is amazingly complex and we have no evidence from science of any 'advantageous' mutation. The entire evidence suggests otherwise. Furthermore, we have plain evidence of a system existing in nature to reverse mutations ('reverse mutation'). So, even this desperate idea is reduced to shreds. 'Evolution theory' is false. Neither living nature nor the fossil record supports the dogmas of evolution theory. There is NO mechanism of evolution. It doesn't exist. It has never existed.
4. Yes, there is no such thing as the extinction of species. What DOES occur, from time to time, however, is the extinction of certain populations of these species. Of certain varieties or forms. But not of the species itself. This too is very simple to understand and even an 'evolutionist' can do so. The species belongs to a genus. The genus itself is phenomenal. It consists of member species who interact with others of its own kind (i.e. of its own genus).
So, in answer to your point, yes, the evidence indicates nature has today the same species as it has always had since life appeared here on Earth. These now living in countless local and regional forms. But no species has been made extinct and no 'new' species are being formed. And, yes, the evolutionist once again flounders (as we have already seen) to define what 'species' actually are. We should move him, his furniture, and his lecture notes to the Philosophy Department and let scientists get on with the realities of nature.
Regards