<<The "weakest points" of macroevolutionary theory (origin of novelty,
origin of complexity, speed of appearance of new forms during times such
as the pre-Cambrian explosion) are well known and generally agreed upon,
and they've been repeatedly mentioned in this group by both sides.>>
Point well taken.
<< 1) Quoting certain statements from evolutionists as evidence
AGAINST evolution,
and then turn around and
2) Complain that evolutionist's can't or won't think of any arguments
against evolution.
It seems like you can have one or the other, but not both.>>
Hmm, I know Steve has caught flak for this (more than his share, perhaps), but
I don't really see the problem. When evolutionists admit to problems which,
for them, are minor inconveniences, but which outside the world of naturalism
are great lacunae for a theory preached as fact, I don't think it
impermissible at all to make this point.
The complaint, "You can't quote so-and-so like that. He's an evolutionist!" is
irrelevant. If his admission is a gaping hole, there is nothing wrong with
calling attention to that. Naturalists want to fill such holes with the
compost, "We'll find a naturalistic answer someday." It's not wrong to mention
that such fill has a certain, er, odor.
I guess #2 is something personal, because there seems to be a whole lotta
dissin' goin' on. That's irrelevant, too.
Jim