Ah..bird evolution. I'm assuming by this you don't just mean a population of birds "evolving" or changing over time, nor do you mean the diversification of birds from some common bird ancestor (both of these are creationist as well as evolutionist views--think about it, no creationist would say that the first birds that were created are exactly like the ones there today, nor would they say that every single species of bird had to be separately created. They would probably talk about genetic changes, speciation, etc.)
I beg to differ that we don't see the designed critter. Let's take a look at the features a bird has
1)aerodynamic wings
2)feathers designed (okay, others would say evolved) for flight
3)lightweight skeleton
4)streamlined body shape
5)respiratory system--supporting the weight of the whole bird requires a tremendous amount of energy and adequate energy must be supplied.
I suppose one can make an irreducible complexity argument at this point--however I'm not a bird expert, and I wouldn't be able to explain why each of the various parts of a bird are each vital for flight. If we design males and females of certain basic species of birds, then first of all we can avoid the messy "transition" from scaly, cold-blooded reptiles to feathered warm-blooded birds (reptiles evolve into other kinds of reptiles, birds evolved from other kinds of birds, there seems no rationale for linking the two), and second of all, more importantly we can appreciate the intelligent designer behind the creatures we see, rather than resorting to a fairy tale explanation.
I discredit that article on several grounds.
1)He suggests that archaeopteryx has reptilian and avian features. Showing a feathered, winged bird is hardly evidence of a "transitional form". And no, you don't get extra points for finding a bird with teeth and claws.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist08.htm2)Evolution of consciousness--this is a riot! So apparently if the connections in the brain are "rich and varied", a concept of self, "awareness" somehow arises. Wow, this is a fascinating discovery--apparently as brains evolve, they get complex enough until the creature is suddenly aware of itself!
No, the author, quite clearly fails to grasp the distinction between mind and matter, matter and consciousness, body and soul, however you may call it. Mere matter is insentient--the brain is simply a mass of nerves, flesh, and blood, there is no need to attribute consciousness to the brain, it can be attributed to the mind/soul instead.
The more I think about it, the more it seems that for an evolutionist, the creationist view of life is absolutely absurd. They prefer some kind of fairy-tale explanation, from single-celled creature, repeatedly dividing, to multicellularity, to some kind of fish (god knows how complex structures like gills just "appeared"), to amphibians (apparently fish evolved lungs and legs that can support their body weight), to reptiles (okay, that transition seems a bit less wacky than the next one...), to birds and mammals!! Doesn't it even seem even slightly farfetched to have bats, whales, and humans, evolve from a common ancestor? Is there any basis for saying that cold-blooded creatures evolved into warm-blooded creatures? Or for that matter, saying that hairy or feathered creatures evolved from scaled ancestors?
I don't know why evolutionists make fun of the creationist view of life--it seems far more rational and consistent with nature. It allows for variation, even speciation. We don't need to look for these "mythical" common ancestors.
I guess a creationist wouldn't understand any of this "all life evolved from a single cell"/"birds and mammals evolved from reptiles, but we don't know how it happened" nonsense
Monsieur Lynx
™ Version 4.2