I wrote that "Punc eek was originated (was invented) to 'explain away'
serious difficulties with the fossil record. Glenn responded, in effect,
that 'explaining-away' is what all science attempts to do and ought to do.
Yes, scientific theories must explain, but Glenn missed my point.
Punc eek was originated not by evidence for evolution, but instead by
serious evidence AGAINST evolution -- specifically the systematic absences
of gradual intergradations, ancestors, and lineages. That is potent
evidence AGAINST evolution, yet that is the very thing that motivates punc
eek and gives it breath.
I also point out (for the umpty-zillionth time), that evolutionists
continually shift the discussion away from testability of their theory and
toward something else (in Glenn's present case, toward the ability of punc
eek to 'explain'.) So I remind readers that punc eek can only be "refuted"
by providing convincing evidence that evolution happened some other way. In
other words, evolution has nothing at risk, it has nothing to lose, it is
not testable.
Then Glenn tries to turn the tables. He tries to use my above argument
against my own theory. Fair enough, let's see how it works:
>The concept that a single Designer would design the living system with
>similar chemistry was "originated (was invented) to 'explain away' serious
>difficulties with the data indicating possible relationship.
Glenn claims the concept of a single designer was invented to "explain away
serious difficulties with the data". Glenn has it quite backwards. The
evidence for a *single* designer (as opposed to multiple separate designers
or multiple sources for life) is overwhelming. The data fairly shouts it.
There is nothing forced or evasive about it (unlike punc eek).
Just as importantly, life's biologic unity is evidence against evolution.
Evolution never predicted that all life would be indelibly united by its
designs (such as biologic universals at the biochemical level). On the
contrary, evolutionists now REJECT all the known biologic universals as far
too complex to have been in the first life forms. In other words, they
claim that life without any of the known biologic universals MUST HAVE
EXISTED ON THIS PLANET (and possibly still could). In addition, evolution
allows that two distant descendants (such as man and microbe) could well be
totally different and completely lacking the overwhelming unity we see in
life. Evolutionists have no claim to life's biologic unity. If evolution
says anything clearly at all, it says biologic unity should not exist.
The very issue Glenn points to -- life's overwhelming unity -- speaks
against evolution and for creation by a single designer. It also provides
yet another example of how the biotic message is testable science, and
evolution is not.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128