At 08:22 PM 20/12/2005, Steve wrote:
Their children will simply grow up ignorant then won't they ! If Darwin could prove just 1% of the natural world then it might be worth listening to . . . but why are Dogs no more intelligent than they were years ago, why are there still Monkeys, why have they not evolved like us ? Where did flowers come from ? How come there are still single cell organisms after all these "milions" of years ? Darwinism doesn't prove anything, all it does it suggest a possible solution to the questions man has been asking for years.
All these questions simply show that you haven't thought Darwinism through completely. The idea that Darwinism requires continuous "improvement" based on what mankind thinks is "better" shows a total lack of understanding of his theory. Put simply: Lifeforms evolve to take advantage of niches where there is less competition for energy. Since there is zero value in dogs getting smarter, they don't. Since there are plenty of niches where being single celled is they best way to harvest energy (one could argue that single celled lifeforms are much better at harvesting energy than we multi-celled organisims) there are still lots of single celled lifeforms (more than any other kind in fact.)
Darwin never said that evolution was working towards creating a bunch of intelligent, car driving, tv-watching, multi-cellular (both biologically and telephonically) creatures. In fact, it is reasonable to see intelligence as a dead end branch of the evolutionary bush, much like size was to the dinosaurs.
T
