I strongly recommend this article, which presents a scientific critique of evolution. It's "Dr. Lee Spetner
in an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max."
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp
I believe any reasonable person who reads this would either abandon belief in evolution or at least begin to doubt it. But that's not why I've posted it here. The main reason this that the so-called rebuttals by evolutionist Ed Max are practically word-for-word the kind of empty rebuttals for evolution that you read on this forum, and Spetner's responses are exquisite. I truly relished them all, because he says more eloquently (and with more scientific detail than I could provide) what I've been saying here since I began participating.
But perhaps my favorite section of the whole article goes as follows, which I would have summed up as "Why does anyone even bother with the theory of evolution?"
in an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max."
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp
I believe any reasonable person who reads this would either abandon belief in evolution or at least begin to doubt it. But that's not why I've posted it here. The main reason this that the so-called rebuttals by evolutionist Ed Max are practically word-for-word the kind of empty rebuttals for evolution that you read on this forum, and Spetner's responses are exquisite. I truly relished them all, because he says more eloquently (and with more scientific detail than I could provide) what I've been saying here since I began participating.
But perhaps my favorite section of the whole article goes as follows, which I would have summed up as "Why does anyone even bother with the theory of evolution?"
[Neo-Darwinian Theory] NDT is a theory that is supposed to account for the natural development of all life from a simple beginning. I dont know why we need such a theory, because the development of life from a simple beginning is not an observable.[/color= The theory is gratuitous; it comes to account for something that was never observed.
Actually, evolutionary thinking goes like this.
One observes present life.
One then assumes that it arose in a natural way.
One then concocts a theory (e.g., the NDT) to account for the observation, given the assumption.
I suppose that if the theory were really a good one, and could really explain well how life could have developed in a natural way, it would lend some credence to the assumption that life did indeed develop in a natural way. But it is not a good theory, and it does not account for what it is supposed to. Evolutionists, realizing this, have lately been reduced to arguing that if no one has a better theory that can account for the natural origin of life, then one must accept NDT.