A woman recently asked the following question on another forum respecting the theory of evolution defined as "descent from a common ancestor through random
genetic mutations resulting in phenotypic changes that improve the
ability of those organisms to survive and reproduce":
"I wonder if you
have ever asked yourself why so many Americans have trouble with this
definition?"
Speaking
for myself, the definition is only part of the problem, but it's not
difficult to understand why some reject it while others are skeptical.
The word "random" in "random mutations and natural selection," is used
to convey the notion that the mutations occur without respect to the
benefit of the organism. Yet, when we look around us, we see life forms
that, from the micro-level to the macro-level, exhibit what I would
call a patently purposeful arrangements of exquisitely coordinated
parts.
Some, like Michael Shermer, have admitted that life forms
exhibit design, but he argues that this is a "bottom-up" natural design
via natural processes. This clearly incorporates an equivocation,
because while mutations that occur without respect to the benefit of an
organism might be accurately described as part of a "bottom-up" process,
they are not part of a "design" process. The two concepts are
antonymous.
Random (in evolutionary theory) = To occur without respect to the benefit of the organism.
Design
(from the Free Dictionary) = 1. a. To conceive or fashion in the mind;
invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference. b. To
formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new
product. 2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a
building; design a computer program. 3. To create or contrive for a
particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages. 4.
To have as a goal or purpose; intend. 5. To create or execute in an
artistic or highly skilled manner.
So, for many of us, the
problems with the theory begin to appear the moment it's uttered, and
from there they accumulate via a process of variations (of faulty
arguments, circular reasoning, and doubtful and/or indeterminate
evidence from its proponents) and natural perception. Another big one
is the circularity issue that I pointed out in my own review of Darwin's Doubt on Amazon's site, entitled
"The Cambrian: Explosive Evidence Against Darwinism".
For me, one
very telling observation is how those who favor Darwinism often seem
incapable of carrying on a civil conversation. The only subjects that
seem to compare when it comes to generating so much more heat than light
are religion and politics, but for some of us that's not unexpected.
