Darwinian Evolution is the most popular due to one element. It postulates a natural undirected process that does not require God or a creator. Some proposals of evolution are "directed". The evolution is directed or forced into a plan or path towards the more complex form, presumably by God or some Intelligent being. These are not popular because it can be argued that an intelligent being is directing the evolution. This is unpalatable to atheists evolutionists. If fact, Charlie himself really disliked any suggestion of a process that occurs quickly, like micro-evolution or adaptation. He disliked it for the simple reason that it can be argue that an intelligence is behind the evolution. Hence, he already rejected one possible mode of evolution due to his dislike for the concept of God.
That attitude my friends is a RELIGION. Darwinian Evolution is a religion. Many people nowadays are afflicted with this unreasonable philosophy. This philosophy is also known as "Methological Naturalism". This says all answers must be naturalistic. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: H Veeder To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium Darwin's theory or explanation of evolution is distinct from the general concept of evolution. Several explanations of evolution have been proposed over the last few hundred years. To date Darwin's theory has been the most fertile but it also has major shortcomings. Only neo-Darwinists insist that all aspects of evolution must be explained in Darwinian terms. harry On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: You would have a point, and I would be with you if there are indeed only one or two anomalies. But, the fact of the matter is, there are hundreds of anomalies that Darwinian Theory can not explain. Even staunch Darwinian Evolutionists are beginning to see that DE theory is becoming untenable. There are new holes poked thru it everyday. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Punctuated equilibrium On 28/08/2014 7:59 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote: You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350 million years old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do tell, what sort of radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years old? I don't know how these particular fossils were dated, but I know how this field of science works in general and have been highly impressed at the quality of some of the data. I have no argument with sincere scientists doing the job the best way they know how. Mistakes can be made but with enough diverse minds at work on the same problems the truth usually ends up prevailing. I'm really not interested in being told that one or two interesting anomalies renders this whole field of science invalid.
