>However, evolution in its most basic form is simply change; the idea
that
>the universe is not static but is fluid. This basic form makes no claim
as
>to what kind of change is occuring, only that it will occur. So rather
than
>demanding or even predicting an increase in complexity, evolution can in
>fact include decreases in complexity, cyclical change, pendulum (back
and
>forth) change, as well as more.
This is exactly the point that the YECs make in critiquing the theory of
evolution - that whatever chance creates, chance destroys. As I see it,
with a purely naturalistic process, you have no means of preserving
"progress" (in the sense of increasing complexity).
>What we see as an apparent overall increase in complexity is actually an
>artifact produced by the process as a whole, which involves a wide
variety
>of phenonena and not just evolution.
If we assume that the human brain is more complex than an expanding cloud
of hydrogen gas, then what we see is a very real and substantial increase
in complexity, not an artifact (IMHO). If you would argue that what we
see today is merely the apex of the swing of the pendulum and it is now
swinging back to the center, I guess I can't fault your logic, but
neither would I agree. I hold that you need (require) an outside force
to give a vector to otherwise random change. Natural selection can only
do so much, and can do nothing on non-living systems.
I guess you've answered my question, and I thank you.
Bill
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]