Of course there would be some aspects that would be hard to explain, such
as
the Israelites crossing on dry ground and the fact that such a combination
of wind and timing is very unliikely, but people who don't believe in God
like to gloss over such issues.
I agee with you Bill. Many times scientist tend to brush over
complexities, instead of trying to explain them they tend to leave them
alone and hope that someone will come along and solve the dilema.
I was trully happy when Behe published his book. I was happy to see that
not all scientist have predetermined in their mind that evolution is fact.
Evolution if it is to be proven true still has many hurdles to jump, and
unfortunately the hurdles that it now faces are far higher than the ones
that it has faced in the past. One of those hurdles is directly linked to
abiogenesis. I have confronted several evolutionist asking them to explain
to me how it is that the first life forms came to exist. To this day not
one has steped up to give me a satisfactory answer. Most of the time they
answer by saying that abiogensis is a separated field of which evolution is
not concerned with. On the contrary I believe that abiogensis, and an
adequate proposal for a mechanism that led to the first life forms is very
important to evolution. If abiogenesis fails to show that life could have
started unaided then the whole edifice of evolution falls for how could
evolution take place if life couldn't have gotten started in the first
place.
Abiogenesis is just one of the things that keeps me from fully accepting
the theory of evolution. Perhaps in a few years scientist will be able to
devise a mechanism through which the first life forms could have formed,
until then I stand weary of accepting evolution at in all of its proposi
tions.
Best Regards,
Juan D. (J.D.) Guzman