From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I think the problem is that you can never offer observable but not forced > evolution. But that was the whole point of Darwin's original observations. > There were four islands somewhat near each other off of Chile, they all had > finches but each were a little different from each other.
The creationist argument is that these are NOT different species but different variants of a common TYPE of finch (these are Darwin's Galapagos finches, BTW). The same argument is used regarding dog breeding: no matter how much we breed dogs no new species is created, they are just different variants of the one type of animal: dog. Essentially, it gets down to either the Bible is infallibly the literal word of God, in which case: * everything was created in 6 literal days * the stars were created after plants * birds were created before land animals * because, on the seventh day God said "it was very good" no animals of any sort died until Adam's fall from grace after eating of the tree of knowledge and turning into a Pak Protect.. (oops, wrong book) And of course that all happened between 6,000 and (tops) 10,000 years ago. Or the bible is open to interpretation. Interpretation means that anything can be questioned. Interpretation leads to fear, fear leads to anger, ang... (oops!). > Darwin was very > religious, but instead of thinking 'God put these slightly different finches > on each island' he figured that they adapted. Darwin was not very religious at all even though he studied religion: it was a required part of learning at Oxford and Cambridge up until the early twentieth C. He came from a family of "free-thinkers". His wife, however, was very much a creationist of the time and hated his evolutionary theory. Brett
