Well, first of all, I should say that I apologize for not remembering how to get your response quoted so that I can section it and respond accordingly--it has been a long time since I've been active enough to do that. I can't understand the directions for this editing stuff that are offered in the helps sections here, so if you or an administrator would give me the code for quoting or sectioning off portions of texts for response, I'd appreciate it. I hope this post is next to your response, zephyr, so that it might not be entirely confusing. Anyway:
You commented on ethical implications and such in your first few sentences. It doesn't matter so much that evolutionism does not compel action of any kind. It's enough that the philosophy's net result is the promotion of a totally mechanistic (purposeless, meaningless) existence. Discount the effects of this type of perspective as you may, it is relevant to the equation of the place that doctrinal positions hold in our society. The fact that it may not teach this creed in a direct sense, or according to the traditional manner that we might associate with other (or the formal practice of) "religions," is beside the point.
Your next concern was, generally, that evolution is true. If evolution is true, micro+micro+micro=macro. And if that equation can't be proven to be an impossibility, then the equation must be true. OK, I think I understand now. The time is there? The 20 billion years that nats propose for the age of the universe is an incredibly brief amount of time for the miracles of chance to orchestrate everything into the present product. The transitions are there? (Only GENERALLY lacking in fine grain?!) The belief in transitional forms (proving the validity of evolution) requires that one become assumptive in the extreme at the onset that evolution has occured.
You then made mention of my ear bones being descendents from a reptile's jaw. This is very . . . interesting. Help me with something here, as I am not an expert (don't feel obligated to resist a snappy comeback to this; I can take it); can you, will you reasonably explain how the intermediates managed to hear and chew while all of the necessary restructuring was taking place, and weren't these creatures that were in these certainly awkward transformational stages supposed to be the superior survivors that supplanted the competition in their environment?
You also commented that 98% of my genes are shared by chimpanzees. Clouds are 100% water. Watermelons are 98% water. Watermelons missed out on being clouds by only 2%. As in the other examples you alluded to, homogeny is no evidence for evolutionism any more than it's evidence for creationism.
Lastly, the only way that evolutionism doesn't require faith is for an affected one to become so convinced (socially, emotionally, etc.) that naturalistic generalizations and assumptions are gospel--religion with a capital "R."
™ Version 4.2
