My question: how come the thousands of professional evolutionists around the world (for the last who knows how many years) have been able to keep researching, and studying, and writing papers without any of them saying “Hey, hold on. There’s a major flaw here! Let’s fold up our tents and go home!”?

I’m not an expert. I don’t know how to respond to statements like “getting 3 mutations to be coherent, act to a common goal, is the limit given 4 billion years.” And therefore, “the mutations can’t be random.” But I bet someone who knows the field could demolish the point in two sentences. (OK, maybe three.) I’m thinking here of the ones who are real authorities - such as the professor who’s written the most used textbook in the field - who were called in the recent trial in Pennsylvania where a school board’s attempt to introduce ID into the classroom was scathingly denied … and an award for over $1 million for legal fees was awarded. All these kinds of red-herring arguments were brought up – and , in this no open and unprotected environment, were virtually effortlessly destroyed. (Sort of like natural selection.)

But then, of course, another red herring would be raised, and then another and then another. Each one being like finding a little prick hole in a painting and then declaring that the “Mona Lisa” doesn’t exist.

In any case, the Theory of Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC(!) THEORY - which does not mean a guess. And you don’t tear down a theory by saying it hasn’t predicted everything yet. The Theory of Relativity hasn’t predicted everything yet. Please, come up with an alternative explanatory, predictive, falsifiable, theory called ID - and then I’ll talk to you seriously. Otherwise, stop wasting serious people’s time.

So does the fact that I can’t argue against that mean anything at all? Of course not. And I’m not going to get anymore caught up with this kind of thing than I am with the multitude of nuts out there on the Internet, who keep claiming that they’ve found THE FLAW in Einstein’s theory, and we CAN go faster than light, and gravity CAN be reversed, and we CAN go backwards in time. I think I’ll just accept the opinions of 99.999% of the professionals out there in the field that say that Darwinian evolution is how it works. (And yes I know that continual minor tweaking always goes on.)

As to the other 0.001% out there? One is Michael Behe, a professional biologist who is a proponent of ID. He was called in the Pennsylvania trial for the defense. The prosecution destroyed him.

The history of genetic copy errors is good support for CA (its not in the common genetic code, which is good evidence for a common designer)

NS is true but trivial. It is the mutations that must be analized-they can be random or non random. Studies with fast replicators like malaria prove that getting 3 mutations to be cohearnt, act to a common goal, is the limit given 4 bil years. It takes thousands of point mutations to build a system with function. All examples to the contrary are either destructive (sickel trait) or envolve swaps of existing genetic material. This accounts for new species but definitly fails well short of the level of phyla.

Conclusion: The mutations can’t be random> they must be directed. This is not “theistic evo” but Design.

Jana Staton, Coordinator
Western Montana Spiritual Development Council