Knowing this, it seems that there are two option concerning the development of life:
1. Either animal kinds are static
2. Or they are not static, and so they can become other animal kinds given enough time. (I use the word 'kind' instead of 'species' because it has a broader sense then the later)
Now, in a Naturalistic, or atheist etc. point of view, there seems to be only one option: the second one. I come to this conclusion because there are no naturalists that I have ever heard of who are proponents of the first option.
That may be because naturalists rely on evidence, and leave religious beliefs and pseudoscience to the philosophers, eh?
Static "kinds" have no basis in science. If it were not for the bible we would never hear of this option, nor even consider it for a moment. It is pure religious apologetics.
Also, it seems a logical conclusion from the fact that we know the universe does not have an infinite past, and so since animals do not pop out of thin air, the only option is that they evolved from a lesser state, and a lesser state, etc. up to a primordial soup. I have to be careful here and make a precision: I am not saying that Neo-Darwinism (as natural selection+mutation are the mechanisms of this evolution) is the only option, but only that evolution is.
Evolution is not the "mechanism." "Evolution" is the term used to describe changes in the genome.
And if "natural selection+mutation," or something quite similar, are not the "mechanisms of this evolution" what are? Does Old Man Coyote or some lesser deity nudge things along at times? If you think so, please specify the
scientific evidence for this position. And, to save time, please specify the
scientific evidence for which deity or deities is/are the culprit.
The Theist, or the non-Naturalist, still has both option. I come to this conclusion because there are Theists who are proponents of both ideas, and also that a universe that had a beginning does not prevent a force, or God, etc. outside of nature to create the animal kinds as static.
The theist has both options to the extent that they reject the naturalist option (that is, the one with evidence) for religious reasons. There is
no scientific evidence for deities pushing genes or mutations around at will.
Kinds is a religious belief. Theistic evolution is a religious belief. Neither has any scientific evidence supporting it.
But fundamentalists and avid creationists are unwilling to accept this, hence creationism, creation "science," and most recently ID.
Believe what you want, but please don't try to inflict your particular religious belief upon either science or our schools.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
