The question that I’d like to try and get an answer for is one that I like to throw into discussions with creationists from time to time. However, more often than not I don’t get a very productive answer from the people I ask (most recently ID man), so I thought I’d have a go at giving the issue a topic all of its’ own, as it has implications about a number of aspects of the debate from Intelligent Design to the definition of biblical ‘kinds’. Here goes
Most creationists seem to accept that there is a certain degree of variability in life that
can be easily explained by the processes of random mutation and selection. My question is this:
Where is the line beyond which evolution can be said to have taken over from a creator’s handiwork?
To give the topic a bit of structure (and to avoid the tired old bacteria-to-man rhetoric) I’d like people to answer the question in a very specific way. Start at Homo sapiens (for no real reason apart from familiarity) and work backwards in a series of common ancestors ie the first obvious step is the chimp/human common ancestor. At each step ask yourself whether simple mutation and natural selection could account for the differences, using what you know about life today and the fossil record.
- If the answer is yes, then proceed to the next step and ask the same question.
- If the answer is no, then tell me why it absolutely requires the interference of a creator/designer.
Try not to make too large a step each time — any attempt to say that the step between
E.coli and
P. Pygmaeus is too large will be frowned upon.
My position is that when I do this exercise I get to no step at which there is a stumbling block, from man all the way back to the very first self-replicators. Others will obviously have a different view.
Where do you draw the line?
This message has been edited by Ooook!, 09-18-2004 05:05 PM
™ Version 4.2