Hi everyone
I just wanted to point out a pattern in the "evolution" of the position of creationists to the theory of evolution. Does it seem to anyone else that they seem happy to keep raising the bar everytime a step forward is taken in substantiating the theory?
For example I love how they usually insist they have no problem with the concept of microevolution (now that it has been highly substantiated) but draw an imaginary line at macroevolution. Surely change is change, and if you extend the time scale involved you extend the scope of the changes. Its like arguing over the length of a piece of string. A- "It's long". B- "It's short!"
But that isn't the main point of this area of the forum, but extends the main point on the recent creation of viruses from scratch. The creationists again choose to enforce an imaginary line between living and nonliving matter, even though the definition of viruses has always been contentious and their close relation to living systems cannot be disputed.
The future of the debate is obvious. When "macroevolution" is demonstrated they will fall back on the direction of macroevolution being divinely inspired or on the origin of life being divine. When bacteria are created from scratch they will insist that the design of life is divine and scientists are merely copying it. Even creating a new form of life wouldn't prove that some sort of intervention wasn't involved in the beginning of "natural" life. The discovery of extraterrestrial life will demonstrate god's universal presence.
The issue will remain contentious. As a race we have trouble reaching a consensus on such trivial things as Elvis being alive or dead, so how can we possibly hope to convince anyone about what really happened billions of years ago? In the end how important is it really?
Shane