We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Always a treat to listen to very high IQ people talk. This is a Wow of a conversation. It's not about Creationism, but about Darwin's likely errors (he didn't have the info we have now). The discussion about the emergence of new proteins is especially interesting.
His 'survival of the fittest' idea was the least inaccurate part of his theory. Natural selection is simply the culling effect of the environment, but Darwin disregarded the reality that there is a Divine benignity written into creation. That a sick or weak creature might be less likely to survive is really a type of Mercy.
The other component of Darwin's theory, evolution via random mutation is what is being proven completely wrong.
To say it's not about Creationism completely misses the point. The point is that they are describing Darwinism as a religion, and a demonstrably false religion, mathematically, biologically, and geologically. Henry Adams, who worked side by side with Darwin to introduce his theories to America, wrote this--
"Unbroken Evolution under uniform conditions pleased every one–except curates and bishops; it was the very best substitute for religion; a safe, conservative, practical, thoroughly Common Law deity. Such a working system for the universe suited a young man who had just helped to waste five or ten thousand million dollars and a million lives, more or less, to enforce unity and uniformity on people who objected to it; the idea was only too seductive in its perfection; it had the charm of art. Unity and Uniformity were the whole motive of philosophy, and if Darwin preferred to back into it rather than start from it, the difference of method taught only the moral that the best way of reaching unity was to unite. Any road was good that arrived. To other Darwinians–except Darwin–Natural Selection seemed a dogma to be put in the place of the Athanasian creed; it was a form of religious hope; a promise of ultimate perfection. Adams wished no better, he warmly sympathized in the object; but when he came to ask himself what he truly thought, he felt that he had no Faith; that whenever the next new hobby should be brought out, he should surely drop off the Darwinism like a monkey from a perch."
I have heard several scientists who have called Darwin's theory
of evolution bad science. His work was full of logical fallacies and
conjecture. I would agree with some aspects of evolution like
small changes over a very long period of time, but the idea that
of one species evolving into another is a quite a stretch.
I came up with a question a few decades ago that I have not
heard anyone else ask. What if man came from the same tree
as apes, but not the same branch? We do know that Cro Magnon
and Neandertal eventually became modern man. This begs the
question, why are we treating 2 million year old monkey skull
fragmants as proof of the transitional species (AKA missing
link,) when the transition might have much more recently?