There is no denying that Evolution is a concept that is a widely held scientific principle. Schools all over the world have been teaching it for decades. It has been ingrained into the scientific mind as a universal truth. Yet, there is a distinct lack in archeological evidence of natural selection. Indeed, the fossil record shows a fragmented view, at best. It seems that Evolution has been replaced with creationism in the classrooms because it fits the scientific mold better. Seemingly, the goal of the scientific community has been to completely remove God from the picture and/or debunk any involvement of intelligent design. It seems a bit strange to me that there appears to be less empirical evidence of Evolution than there is of intelligent design. Have said all this, I would like to see what is everyone's view on the subject. Please, let's not have any ridiculing statements, but as much factual information and/or evidence as is relevant.
Seems like a lot of people have already given good answers to this. Just to make sure though we are at an understanding about the level of evidence.
Fossil evidence is overwhelming. There are vast fossils as well as other geological evidences. But really the fossil evidence was the minor evidence when compared to the DNA evidence and predictive evidence that has been made. There is, to date, literally zero amounts of evidence for ID. There are fallacies and arguments based off of those fallacies but no actual evidence. They haven't elbowed their way into the classroom and as far as I have been informed have been smacked down every time they attempt to put their non-science in a science room. So no it isn't the more scientific nor is it the more supported by evidence. It is more supported by fundamentalists that have near endless access to funding from their followers. That is the difficulty with it.
First of all, my apologies for the feeble attempt at analogizing with a conspiracy theory. There is plenty of evidence as to the validity of Evolutionary theory mentioned in previous posts, but it is not infallible or unquestionable evidence. Consider the following:
1. What seems to be what people like to call evolution, should really be called mutation.
There is no difference. Except mutation is how it occurs. Its like saying "what you mean by running you meant taking steps". It takes steps to run. It is very much fallible. I welcome people to bring critcisms. It is ONLY through criticisms of the past that we have obtained new information about evolution. But there is a difference between offering a criticism and attempting to tear it down with the hopes of putting your personal belief system in its place.
The only observation we have been able to make is how bacteria remain as bacteria, and any other beings remain as basically their same respective being.
2. If you were to quantify in terms of probabilities a natural order or selection to outdo or outperform a designed order or selection, the scale would most undoubtedly be heavy on the design end.
In other words, a designed order or selection would likely be the most successful and thereby most probable cause for the existence of life.
There is no way to quantify probabilities of this nature. We can make estimates and those estimates follow along with evolution perfectly based off of what we know. There is no design "probabiilty" either it is or isn't. And so far there is no evidence of design but there is a fair amount of evidence against design. So there is little meaning in attempting to say that a designed creature would fair better than an evolved one. This also brings the question why 99.9% of all species to have ever existed are now extinct. If it was a grand designer it seems they did a poor job. Or rather it seems that it was not designed.
3. The probability of life created by chance is infinitesimally small, and not observable or capable of being observed.
Yet, we (homo sapiens) as a collective intelligence, have the potential to develop the technology - even the ability to create a living organism and/or life form.
Indeed the chance for life is small. No one has argued against it. But is it impossible? In the vastness of our universe if it is 'Possible" then it isn't a miracle. It is possible for it to even be probable that life could emerge under a great number of conditions and our type of life is only one of many. It is also possible that the "just right" conditions only occur in very rare occasions. Even so then it isn't argument against evolution.
It is also important to note that human beings being able to engineer life is only after careful study of evolution and applying it. So if we were able to create life then it would be an argument for evolution. Not against it.
