Originally posted by mfred
Clearly, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support evoution, if you are looking at it a certain way. In order to believe that all the evidence points to evolution you must assume that God can not or would not create the world with any sort of hierarchal order. You see the scientific bias is that all things fit into this grand physical theory, regardless of how unlikely it is that it would ever occur. In terms of statistics, the time needed for the extremely unlikely occurence of evolution to become likely is many times longer than the age of Earth as determined by geophysics (which by the way any scientifically accepted age of the Earth is usually on the high side of the range that geophysics dictates). The reason evolution is such a popular theory is that in some instances it fits very well, because species can over time adapt. However, just because species adapt does not in anyway validate the idea that new structures can evolve, especially new structures which are advantageous for species survival. As pointed out earlier, evolution is a theory, not a law (gravity by the way is a law). From a very broad scale biological perspective it appears to make sense, clearly you see a propensity in nature to increasing complexity. However, if you really look at the logistics of the whole system, it is mind boggling. Just look at the renin/AgII system to use a medical example. Which part of that evolved 1st? The system is reliant on so many enzymes and receptors that only work in an integrated fashion, what evolutionary advantage does only part of the system give? How does having random amounts of ACE floating around without the rest of the system make a paticular organism (with an astoundingly bizarre and improbble mutation which somehow works its way into the gametes to pass this mutation onto its offspring which will also in a very bizarre fashion make this mutation more advantageous) more fit for reproduction? It truly boggles the mind. To me, it is much easier to look around the gross anatomy lab, the physiology book, the neuroscience book, or the universe (astrophysics major in former life) and see God then to see a world/universe which won the lottery 100 billion times in a row. Could a similar post be written about the liklihood that there is a benevolent God who will someday judge the world? Yes, of course, that is why they call it faith. However, I would point out that faith belongs in the realm of the metaphysical, not in the realm of science.