> "Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of
> Reason Rule Our Minds" (John Wiley &
> Sons: New York, 1994).
> Suffice it to remind the reader that
> insects had evolved at least ten
> elaborate forms of mouthpieces, uniquely
> "adapted" (one would say) to their
> feeding upon flowers, one hundred million
> years before there were any flowers on
> Earth. Try to explain that with the
> notion of adaptation.
This had come up before and on June 16th Glenn Morton replied:
> Have you considered two other
> possibilities?
> 1. the mouths of insects were well
> adapted to feeding upon whatever they ate
> in the 100 million years prior to flowers?
> (If they weren't then the insects would
> have starved)
> 2. Flowers evolved to match what was
> available at the time, namely, insect
> mouth parts which were adapted to eating
> other thing.
Glenn, have you considered two *other* possibilities:
1. That the Designer *over engineered* the mouthpieces of insects
beyond the immediate requirements in anticipation of their ultimate use.
The human brain may not have been the first biological organ to be over
engineered for the initial need. These mouth organs could have been
useful for feeding on whatever was around at the time, but they could
have also been overkill for the immediate need pending the creation--by
whatever means--of flowers.
2. That the Designer engineered flowers, by various natural and/or
non-natural mechanisms to be perfectly suited to the mouthpieces of
insects that had been created tens of millions of years before.
You said "flowers evolved", and that is all the evolutionist ever
says--this came from that, one thing gave rise to another, such and such
*evolved*. These terms have become something of a magic bullet for
evolutionists. Just because an evolutionist can *say* something evolved
does not *prove* it did so by purely naturalistic mechanisms. The
evolutionist starts with his conclusion and justifies himself by
pointing out that *some* adaptations have been observed in species--he
conveniently overlooks the fact that this isn't the kind of adaptation
that involves new species or even new organs. (Forget speckled moths in
this debate because in that case there were always some white and some
brown moths for natural selection to work on--there was never anything
new, just varying numbers of the two variations.)
The Darwinian view that new species can arise from old and that new
useful organs can evolve by necessity has not been proved. I assert
this in the context of *my* understanding of Darwinian Evolution as I've
posted here before and quote here from a post I made elsewhere:
> Darwinian Evolution can be expressed in
> the form of two theorems: a *Special
> Theory* and a *General Theory*.
> Darwin's Special Theory of Evolution is
> built upon the following premises:
> 1. Species have changed with respect to
> time.
> 2. These changes occurred naturally.
> Given special evolution, Darwin's General
> Theory of Evolution is built upon the
> following premises:
> 1. Small changes accumulate into large
> changes.
> 2. All new species are derived from these
> changes.
> Darwin's Special Theory has been so
> thoroughly proved as to make attempts at
> denial to fall into the "flat earth"
> category. Darwin's General Theory, however,
> does not stand so firmly. The first premise
> is really only partially validated and the
> second has not been validated at all.
> The General Theory is supported not by
> factual evidence but by other theories
> about one thing *giving rise* to another
> and this fin *became* that leg. The General
> Theory itself is not even *scientific* by
> the classic definition of the term because
> it is neither provable nor disprovable.
> The problem is that creationists try to
> argue against the General Theory and
> evolutionists think that they are trying
> to refute the Special Theory. Indeed, many
> evolutionists probably do not realize the
> difference between the two. Saying to them,
> "I disagree with evolution" is like saying,
> "I believe in a flat earth" precisely
> because they think you mean "I disagree
> with *all* premises of evolution."
> It is possible to disagree with the
> general theory because the evidence is not
> yet there to support it. The evidence may
> appear in time, but it isn't there yet, and
> theories alone do not constitute evidence.
I realize Darwin did not develop his thesis in the form of these two
theories, nevertheless they are reasonable conclusions of the
evolutionist's position. It is the General Theory of Evolution that I
challenge because no positive proof has ever been offered to support it.
Its position is no better scientifically than the creationist's, and as
such it is not unreasonable to challenge it in every single domain of
human knowledge in which it rears its head.
For example, since last Friday, we have been listening to the major
media going on about two things ad nauseum: life on Mars and UFO's at
Roswell. Ignoring the obvious scientific shortcomings of the latter,
media *experts* have assumed the truth of Darwin's theory (the general
one) regardless of the lack of supporting evidence. The position of
evolutionists seems to be that the General Theory of Evolution is
axiomatic and requires no defense or supporting evidence. I cannot
accept this conclusion any more than the evolutionist accepts my
conclusion about creationism.
There is one difference between the evolutionist's position and mine:
he tries to pass his off as real science whereas I recognize the
religious nature of both positions. Naturalistic Evolution is the
cardinal doctrine (read dogma) of the humanist religion.
Russ
Russell T. Cannon
rcannon@usa.net