Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 6)
Message-ID: <549@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 15:10:35 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.549
Posted: Mon Apr 22 15:10:35 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 08:25:05 EST
References: <335@iham1.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 88

[......................]
>     THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR CREATION: 116 CATEGORIES OF EVIDENCE
>
>I.  (Life Sciences): THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID.
>
>    A.  EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
>
Here we go again...
>                                      ...
>
>
>       10.  All  species  appear   perfectly   developed,   not   half
>            developed.

Depends on how you look at it.  All species appear half developed, depending
on what you think they are developing toward.

			 They show design [a]. There are no examples of
>            half-developed feathers, eyes [b], skin, tubes  (arteries,
>            veins,  intestines,  etc.),  or  any of thousands of other
>            vital organs. 

Not true.  There are ranges of eyes and ears from the very simple to the
complex.  Note some reptiles 'hear' vibrations without ears, the use of the
jaw to detect vibrations may explain why early jawbones evolved into the
'hammer' and 'anvil', thus making the jaw itself an early form of ear.
Simple light sensitive cells could have been an early 'eye'.  You can
find many examples of lesser developed organs, intestines, etc. and
if you look at simpler and simpler organisms, you find these structures
simplify to the point that it is not hard to postulate mechanisms
whereby they may have risen naturally.

>			    For example, if a limb were to evolve into a
>            wing,  it  would become a bad limb long before it became a
>            good wing.

Not necessarily.  If you look at flying squirrels and the like, you find
that excess folds of skin at their sides are used for gliding.  Eventually,
the upper arms could change thru evolution to become more wing-like, if such
flight enhances the organisms capability to survive.

>
>            a)  William  Paley,  NATURAL  THEOLOGY,  1802   (reprinted
>                Houston TX:  St.Thomas Press, 1972).
>            b)  ''To suppose that the  eye  with  all  its  inimitable
>                contrivances  for  adjusting  the  focus  to different
>                distances, for admitting different amounts  of  light,
>                and  for  the  correction  of  spherical and chromatic
>                aberration,  could  have  been   formed   by   natural
>                selection,  seems,  I  freely  confess,  absurd in the
>                highest  degree.''  [Charles  Darwin,  THE  ORIGIN  OF
>                SPECIES (The Macmillan Company, 1927), p. 175.]

Not when you look at developments from simpler forms.

>       11.  No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind  has
>            ever been observed.

Huh?  I though we were discussing evidence for creation, not 
Chariots of the Gods.

>       12.  If languages evolved, the earliest languages should be the
>            simplest.   On  the contrary, language studies reveal that
>            the more ancient the language  (for  example,  Latin,  200
>            B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B. C., the
>	    more complex it is with respect to syntax, cases, genders,
>	    moods,  voices, tenses, and verb forms.  The best evidence
>	    indicates that languages DEvolve [a-c].

I doubt this one very much.  Have you looked at the asian languages?
Not being a linguist myself, I really couldn't say.  Still this is not
particularly compelling evidence pro-creation OR con-evolution.

>
>       13.  Studies of the thirty-six documented cases of children who
>            were  raised  without  contact  with  other  humans (feral
>            children) show that human speech  appears  to  be  learned
>            only  from  other humans. Humans apparently have no inborn
>            ability to speak. Therefore, the first  humans  must  have
>            been endowed with a speaking ability; there is no evidence
>            that language has evolved [a].
>
What kind of speech?  Do feral children not make any sounds at all?  (note
many animals do!) 

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd