Pre-Cambrian Explosion

I read that article as suggesting the following:

• Intelligent Design is not "science"
• Natural Selection is not "fact"

There is sufficient cause for doubt about the "theory" of evolution and natural selection. To me that seems a healthy thing -- formulate falsifying hypothesis and test those hypothesis. I'm not suggesting that the answer, "Ergo, God created it" is a good falsifying response. My primary complaint all along is that so many people simply assume "evolution" (or "natural selection") is a settled, without-question scientific fact. It's not.

You mention the Pre-Cambrian Explosion -- that right there is cause to question the commonly accepted notion of "natural selection." The fossil record shows that suddenly -- suddenly -- there is this massive proliferation of new fossil types. If one subscribes to the "random mutation that leads to reproductive advantage" hypothesis, one would normally expect to see within the fossil record a series of changes, from less-advanced to more-adanced. But we don't see that. We see -- pow! -- all these new things.

My understanding is this is explained in two ways:

1. Earlier fossil evidence of variations in the species development was lost because their structure was not condusive to preservation.
2. A phenomenon called "punctuated equilibrium," wherein the development of new species remains in a suspended state, then suddenly explodes with new development, supposedly in response to some massive change in environmental conditions.

Item #1 is absurd on its face -- there is fossil evidence that predates the "Pre-Cambrian Explosion". Therefore one would expect to see variations on the fossil evidence from that earlier time period leading up to and through the time of the "explosion." But the historical record has a huge unexplained gap. And the burden falls on the advocates of natural selection to explain that gap, and not with buzz-words like "punctuated equilibrium."

Item #2 is is plausible on its face -- changes in environment cause massive changes. Here's where the typical evolutionist falls down. They typically ascribe the changes that occur due to "adaptation" to changing conditions. An amoeba doesn't "adapt" -- it can't consciously decide ... "Hmmm ... I'll modify my protein structure to better accomodate these conditions." Modifications like that only come through random genetic mutations -- not conscious decisions. (Unless the changes are guided by a higher entity. I'll happily give credit to God; Darwinists are less happy to do that ... they credit "nature.") A drastic change in the environment could lead to massive genetic mutations -- increase UV radiation, for instance, could produce such genetic variations. Again, massive mutations would not tend to survive: the ability to reproduce with another like organism is minimized if the mutation is so drastic as to prohibit reproductive options. Mutations that survive and prosper tend to be small, gradual things -- and that would leave a fossil trace. But it has not. Again, the burden is on the natural selection advocates to explain that gap -- if in fact those advocates were interested in science, which in my opinion they are not.

My opinion is -- and it is just my opinion -- that people adhere to the (corrupted) notion of "evolution" because it alleviates the need to feel accountable. That's a wildly debatable point, I'll admit. But that's what I believe.

The book, "Case for a Creator," by Lee Stroebel was a very good discussion of the "problems" with present-day theories of creation. You'd hate it, so I wouldn't recommend you get it. But I liked it because it didn't fall lock-step into "evolution is settled scientific fact" camp.

Note: two years ago, during the closing of my cottage up north, one of the guys on the trip used the example of the domesticated dog as evidence of "evolution." I pointed out that it was an absurd example. By that standard then gene-splicing is evidence of "evolution." Human intervention into the genetic structure of an organism, along with the fostering of that modification into future generations, is not a good example. Can you tell I'm animated about this subject?

* * *

Hey, but on a positive note ... I just got back from the doctor where I underwent a "stress EKG" to investigate chest pains of late. No evidence of a coronary anomoly. I'm pitifully out of shape, but there's no irregularity in my heart pattern or activity.

* * *

More "Most Beautiful" -- about a year ago I was watching a TV show that chronicled the 13-week basic training of U.S. Marine recruits. The U.S. Marine "boot camp" is notoriously difficult. The inductees were subjected to all manner of physical and psychological hardships. But what transpired during that 13 weeks was the replacement of the old ethics -- laziness, victimhood, excuse-making -- into the Marine ethic: honor, integrity, hard-work, sacrifice, teamwork, allegiance to things bigger than one's self. At the end of the training the recruits are subjected to a 72-hour brutual training exercise, after which they graduate and become Marines.

The film showed recruit after recruit receiving their insignia, and being told by the drill sergeant, "Today you are a Marine." And every one of those recruits had tears streaming down their faces, not out of relief that it was over, but out of a new sense of accomplishment and purpose. They were now men -- men of honor and integrity.

That scene will never leave my mind.

I have never met a U.S. Marine -- past or present -- that does not hold to a solid foundation of "God and Country." They are truly different men. I admire them greatly.