There were a variety of great responses to my last post on the issue of creation and evolution…
One that’s on my mind right now is the one that basically said that some people don’t buy evolution on scientific grounds.
I can appreciate denying evolution on theological grounds. I have a little more trouble with denying evolution on scientific grounds. It’s my opinion that most of the attempts at critiquing evolution for scientific reasons don’t hold much water.
This post would be endless if I ran through the details of all the critiques here… So I think what I’ll do is, just kind-of name the attempts at scientifically undercutting evolution here. In future posts, I’ll explore why I don’t think these atacks work one at a time.
It’s possible there are other attacks on Neodarwinian evolution… If I missed any I’d love to hear about it. At any rate, the reasons I’m aware of follow:
#1) Evolution isn’t observable.
#2) There is a problem with irreducible complexity, particularly in terms of microbiology.
#3) There aren’t enough tranistional fossils to support the evolutionary account.
#4) The evolutionary account violates the law of entropy.
#5) Evolution isn’t nearly as agreed upon as some would have us believe… the fact that it’s called a theory and the fact that experts disagree around important details attest to this fact.
That’s all for now… I’ll take a look at each of these over the next few days.
(And let me know if I missed any!)