Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site iham1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!iham1!rck
From: rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 22)
Message-ID: <367@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 13:24:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: iham1.367
Posted: Mon Jun  3 13:24:28 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Jun-85 01:22:14 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 72


     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. (See 1-13.)

    B.  ALL  ARGUMENTS  FOR  EVOLUTION  ARE  OUTDATED,  ILLOGICAL,  OR
        WISHFUL THINKING.  (See 14-24.)

    C.  NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  LIFE  ARE  SO
        COMPLEX  THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN
        IT.

       35.  If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a
            result  of  evolution,  then  an  absolutely  unbelievable
            series of chance events would have  had  to  occur  [a,b].
            First,  the  amazingly  complex  and  completely different
            reproductive systems of the male must have COMPLETELY  and
            INDEPENDENTLY  evolved at about the SAME TIME AND PLACE as
            those of the female. Just a slight incompleteness in  only
            one  of  the  two  would  make  both  reproductive systems
            useless,  and  natural  selection   would   oppose   their
            survival.  Second,  the  physical, chemical, and emotional
            systems of the male and  female  would  also  need  to  be
            compatible.  Third,  the  complex  products  of  the  male
            reproductive system (pollen or sperm) would need  to  have
            an   affinity   for   and   a   mechanical   and  chemical
            compatibility with the eggs from the  female  reproductive
            system.  Fourth,  the  intricate  and  numerous  processes
            occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg
            would  have  to  work  with fantastic precision--processes
            that scientists can only describe in an  aggregate  sense.
            And  finally, the environment of this fertilized egg, from
            conception until it also reproduced with another  sexually
            capable ''brother or sister'' that was also ''accidently''
            produced, would have to be controlled to  an  unbelievable
            degree.  Either  this series of incredible events occurred
            by  random  processes  or  else  an  Intelligent  Designer
            created sexual reproduction.

            a)  ''This book is written  from  a  conviction  that  the
                prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and
                animals  is  inconsistent  with  current  evolutionary
                theory.''   [George  C.  Williams,  Preface,  SEX  AND
                EVOLUTION  (Princeton,  N.J.:   Princeton   University
                Press, 1975), p. v.]
            b)  ''So why is there sex? We do  not  have  a  compelling
                answer   to   the  question.  Despite  some  ingenious
                suggestions  by  orthodox  Darwinians  (notably   G.D.
                Williams  1975;  John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no
                convincing Darwinian  history  for  the  emergence  of
                sexual  reproduction.  However, evolutionary theorists
                believe  that  the  problem  will  be  solved  without
                abandoning  the main Darwinian insights--just as early
                nineteenth-century  astronomers  believed   that   the
                problem  of  the  motion  of  Uranus could be overcome
                without  major  modification  of  Newton's   celestial
                mechanics.''  [Philip  Kitcher,  ABUSING  SCIENCE: THE
                CASE AGAINST  CREATIONISM  (Cambridge,  Massachusetts:
                The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.]

                                      ...


   II.  (Astronomical Sciences):

                               TO BE CONTINUED

  III.  (Earth Sciences):
				Ron Kukuk
				Walt Brown