What has evolution theory produced?

I think Darwin's theory, contrary to creationist lore, has given us a notion of our place in the world. Jesus told his disciples they are in this world but not of this world. Unfortunately for the literalists, we're both.What's so horrifying to the creationists about sharing encyclopedia-length genetic script with every other living thing on this planet? Our origins in the biosphere are nothing to be ashamed of. The fact that life developed over billions of years to the point where we have the intelligence to decipher history's patterns simply staggers me. I know my sense of wonder is shared with everyone else here, except maybe Dan.Maybe the real opposition to Darwin's theory comes through the specter of natural selection, the cruel creator. Science doesn't show us as the product of a purposeful developmental plan by a being with foresight and intelligence. It shows us as the late arrivals into a world where biological complexity and beautiful design come at the price of a mind-boggling amount of death, waste, extinction, competition and cruelty. Darwin made us realize that the great creator of all the wonders of nature is indeed God the Destroyer in the form of natural selection.P.S. I still like this analogy to explain the correct way to look at the micro-macro debate: the creationist says that macroeveolution doesn't happen because only microeveolution has ever been observed.By that logic, heat waves don't happen because you can't measure them with a thermometer. All we can empirically test, says the creationist, is a really hot day. Therefore a lot of really hot days in a row don't constitute a heat wave, just a lot of really hot days.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

John Paul declares:

quote:

---

Creationists say the alleged great transformations aren't science- they were never observed and can't be objectively tested, repeated or verified. The alleged great transformations are a belief.

---

I'm increasingly frustrated that this debate is centering on metaphysics. The truth remains, John Paul, that a 'belief' in the common ancestry of all life on Earth does postulate testable mechanisms such as DNA recombination and natural selection. It explains the patterns of change we see throughout the fossil record and reliably predicts which fossils we should find in which strata. It explains the often bizarre complexity we see in nature, and through examination of interrelations among existing species, has often inferred the existence of organisms that were later found in the field or fossilized. It explains the mountain of genetic data that is accumulating every day and has often predicted the existence of genetic links that later proved true. People from every religious or philosophical background perform research in the field of evolutionary biology and evidently have no problem reconciling Darwin's theory with their faith.Creationism, on the other hand, does not offer a better explanation for natural phenomena other than "it was created." It does not offer a framework for systematizing scientific data. It does not propose any testable mechanisms. It depends for its support only on the ridiculous assertion that accepting common ancestry is rejecting God.One 'belief' is the product of centuries of empirical evidential inquiry, John Paul, and the other is motivated solely by the urge to exploit religious guilt.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall