You make the mistake so many creationists do by focusing on fossils or the lack of same to critique evolutionary theory....
It ain't no mistake. It is reason that forces me to in part focus upon the fossils. I also focus on other weaknesses of Darwinian religion. They all show a need for better evidence.
Although interesting, as least as a way to impress creationists, it is among the least important scientific evidence in support of evolution.
Obviously it is least important to "scientists," otherwise they would not have such strong faith.
My understanding of Darwin had him doing the first systematic ordering of living species which he did by studying anatomy and physiology.
There were several pre-Darwinian essentialists who used Platonic philosophy to describe apparent natural relationships between "species." They pulled off some decent classifications, but did not claim anything actually evolved from anything else. Darwin basically tried to explain to origin of the relationships pointed out by essentialist taxonomists. He did this without real evidence, arguing his ideas essentially by referring to the artificial selection that farmers used to create new breeds (not species) of sheep and other such domesticated animals. Of course the fallacy of his approach is glaring, and yet scientists failed to see it. Artificial selection relies upon specific human intelligence, not general forces in nature. This uncritical acceptance of Darwinism reigned in science, deceiving generations of would-be scientists who then set out to support the Darwinian speculation by finding stuff. And, not surprisingly, they began to find stuff. This uncritical aspect of scientists reigns to this day.
No, we are not going to change each others mind, but I would like to ask one more question, ie if Adam and Eve were the products of special creation and placed in the Garden of Eden, a) do you subscribe to the evidence that says the first humans lived in Africa and migrated from there,
I think the jury is still out on the worldwide migration pattern of humans. I have something of an idea about it, but since I was not there at the beginning, it seems most prudent that I wait until God gives me a course on the matter, likely when He and I sit down and take a few million years or so just to talk and let me get to know Him better.
and b) if Adam and Eve were the first two humans, are we the products of incest? If so, such evidence would have been found in our DNA...
Well, this really depends upon you worldview. You are a philosophical naturalist who is quite trapped in uniformalism. So you would not be able to see anything in our DNA except DNA. Indeed, you are so trapped in uniformalism that you naturally project today's restrictions against incest to the initial beings. I, on the other hand, am a philosophical theist who is not trapped within uniformalism. I therefore have no problem at all with two perfect beings giving birth to genetically perfect sons and daughters, who then marry to produce genetically perfect sons and daughters, and so on... |
