I’ve always been intrigued with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. It’s amazing how many people are willing to hold it up as scientific law when it is, in fact, a theory. Not all of Darwin’s ideas are bunk, however. I do believe microevolution exists within a species over time as it adapts to its environment but the whole ‘fish growing legs’ thing? Well, that’s just plain science fiction in my opinion. If there were some possible way that man evolved from electrically-charged, primordial protein soup you’d expect to find more substantial evidence in the fossil record to prove it– the missing links as they’ve come to be known.
Even evolutionist Gerald A. Kerkut noted several troubling assumptions that Darwin’s theory proposes, though most supporters only consider the seventh. 1) Nonliving things gave rise to living material. 2) Spontaneous generation occurred only once. 3) Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all interrelated. 4) Protozoa gave rise to the metazoa. 5) Various invertebrate phyla are interrelated. 6) Invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates and 7) Vertebrates and fish give rise to amphibia, amphibia to reptiles, reptiles to birds and mammals. It’s interesting stuff. I wonder how many self-proclaimed Darwinists truly believe all seven of these tenets of the theory?
One reply on “Theories”
Interesting piece. It is worth noting that although we remember Darwin as the “father” of the evolutionary theory, he was mostly the one who collected the evidence and filled in many of the gaps. Lamarck was probably more influential, but is long gone from the halls of history. Russel was also very important and probably the fire that pushed Darwin to write “On the Origin of Species.” I also find it intriguing that Darwin was a Christian much of his life, but died an agnostic. Copernicus’s views were tough to reconcile with religion in his era as well, but were accepted as time went on. The same may come with Darwin in time, but maybe not, only time will tell. I’ve always wondered how religious colleges’ science departments reconcile both sides of the argument.