GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
From:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y244100
| Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 02 2015,22:12) | | Maybe there is hope for ID after all. |
See: How Would You Answer These Questions?
| Quote | A friend writes to inform me that his son’s high school biology teacher is busily indoctrinating him into Darwinism by writing test questions that force the student to spew back Darwinist party-line answers in order to receive credit. Here are the questions:
1. One argument made against evolution is: evolution is random, so it cannot generate complex, orderly organisms. Explain why this statement is false.
2. Some people argue that evolution cannot be observed today. Explain how natural selection is observable in each of the following professionals (and makes their work more difficult): medical professionals, exterminators, and farmers.
......
Barry’s answers:
1. Neo-Darwinian theory posits that natural selection acts on random changes such as mutations by preserving those changes that create a survival advantage and deleting those changes that do not. As advantageous changes accumulate over countless generations, simple organisms gradually morph into more complex organisms. While it is true that the theory posits that the changes are random, it is not true that the theory posits that the overall process is random, because natural selection is not random. As the law of gravity “directs” a stone to fall to the earth, the law of “natural selection” directs the evolutionary process in a way that is analogous to a dog breeder developing a new dog breed. Therefore, it is false to say that Neo-Darwinian theory posits a purely random process. That said, natural selection has never been observed to actually direct the creation of large scale evolutionary changes such as new body types, and there are good reasons to believe it cannot do so.
2. It is simply false to say that evolution has never been observed. It most certainly has. Scientists have actually observed microbes develop antibiotic resistance through a strictly Darwinian process. Obviously, the work of medical professionals becomes more difficult when the microbes they are trying to eradicate evolve resistance to antibiotics. Similarly, the work of famers and exterminators becomes harder when bugs evolve resistance to pesticides. Thus, Darwinian evolution at this scale has been observed many times, and it is therefore false to say evolution cannot be observed. That said, it is also true that in contrast to small scale changes within a type (such as the development of antibiotic resistance), large scale evolutionary change that result in complex new organs or new body types has not been directly observed. Rather, since Charles Darwin and his finch beaks, theorists have assumed that the same process that results in small changes can be extrapolated to account for large changes. There are, however, very good reasons to believe that assumption is unwarranted. |
With all considered, that's not all bad. Or at least I'm OK with Barry's answers. Long live UD....
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
