JaggedSac on 12 February 2009
| Bursche said: From what I know and conclude, many of Darwin's principles are right. I believe in adaptation and some parts of evolution. But I also believe in Intelligent Design. I don't think its plausible to have interspecies evolution. A fish walking on land because it was born with lungs instead of gills. Adaptation is real, and thus that part of evolution is. Its proven everyday by all of us adapting to our society and environment. But I have yet to see interspecies proof that shows that we all originated from microorganisms, then fish, then amphibians, and so on. If you think about survival of the fittest, how would the offspring, the first fish that can now breath oxygen, survive the rough climate of land if that is the only part that had evolved. He would die. If evolution takes millions of years, then we may never know if this aspect of it is true or not. |
That is why Darwinian Theory is hazy. It could be how it happens, it could not be. The problem around ID and DT is that the scientific community ostracizes the ID thinkers, by firing them, ridicule, etc. Yet ID ideas are no less unscientific than saying that lightning struck some mud and life came about, or that crystals evolved into life. While these things could be true, they have yet to be proven, and until they have been proven, the scientific community should embrace ideas that could fill in the gaps of DT.
