In the US the sides are pretty well defined - 'Creationist/Intelligent Design/Bible' on one side and 'Evolution/Science/Anti-Christian' on the other.
However, in the rest of the world there are other positions to be considered - you can't assume that someone not in one of these camps is automatically in the other.
Unfortunately when the Atheist Cult was picked up outside the USA it adopted the US arguments lock, stock and barrel - despite the fact there are few if any people who could be described as 'bible bashers' in the UK...
Anyhow, as I see it, the 'evolutionary' perspective starts here and looks backwards, but never actually addresses how it all started... it addresses 'development' not 'creation'.
Further evolution in using 'survival of the fittest' misses out on what I think is a rather important point - in a reasonably life filled environment, each new, fitter species will (almost by definition) replace at least one other species... So evolution is unlikely to increase the number of species, in fact as fitter species win, the number of species would tend to decrease...
This leaves a big question about where it all started and how many species there used to be and where they came from. We are back at 'creation' and evolution doesn't have an answer - it doesn't try to have... Oops.
If there was an initial 'creation' event (or events) I don't know what they consisted of, but the proposals seem to be 'intelligent design' or 'anything except intelligent design' -- but while anyone looking closer is attacked by both sides, progress is likely to be slow...
No comments:
Post a Comment