Thanks for the article. Of course as I have already demonstrated, it is sloppy thinking to assume physical similarity significantly supports biological evolution. One might assume it quite possible that if, like musical instruments, living things were created in accord with an "archetype," then similarities between species would certainly exist and that these similarities would exist by varying degrees depending upon the classes in which the species appear.
What we need to give stronger support to the neo-Darwinian synthesis is not images showing how much a mouse looks like a man, whether morphologically or otherwise; but since modern "scientists" make the fantastic claim that man and mouse are cousins, we need fantastic evidence that nature, and not man, compounds and preserves mutations, that she does this to a degree that is not a mere fluke, but to a degree sufficient enough to account for the manifold variety of life on earth within the time life is alleged to have existed on earth, and since the resulting process of descent with modification should obviously dump an unfathomable number of fossils on the earth, we must be able to see a remarkably smooth series of fossils (not the current paltry bone fragments supplemented by some dang goofy "scientist's" plaster fantasies) supporting the existence of the shared ancestor and all of its modified descendants branching outward to man and other organisms. This sort of evidence should be expected at a bare minimum. After all, the claim is a fantastic one and so it requires fantastic evidence.
It simply will not do to accept the claim as true based upon the remarkably scanty evidence we have currently. That current scant evidence can easily appear to support our beliefs if we bring to it the assumption that our beliefs are true. That is what scientists have done since Darwinism has emerged. Remember, Darwin crafted his theory long before there was any fossil proof at all, indeed long before the field of genetics existed. And yet the "truth" of Darwinism slowly gained a foothold in the scientific community over a number of generations only because of its alleged explanatory power. With generations of brainwashed scientists joining the hunt for transitional fossils it is to be expected that they would "find" them. Under such circumstances it is to be expected that scientists would see evidence where in fact none existed.
After evaluating this issue for myself even under the terms of your religion and under the requirements of basic natural logic, I am persuaded that scientists are not gods, not priests and not authoritative on even empirical evidence, but that they are mere fallible men in severe need of raising their standards to the highest degree regarding what passes for evidence. I am also persuaded they have moved too swiftly in declaring as evidence material that is so fragmentary, it gains its strength only via the blind faith of the Darwinian religion and not on its own merit.
You will of course bristle and ridicule my assessment and that is fine. You believe as you wish and I will continue to believe the truth. If similarity between mice and men builds your Adam and Eve story and helps you find peace in the cosmos, then find your peace. As for me, your religion is insufficient, and I can by no means accept it and be honest, especially when I live with the daily proof that I am a creature made by the The Almighty God Who also created you. |
