First of all, there are scientists, properly so, who do not accept all aspects of macro evolution or long periods of time.
For some interesting articles you might check this site:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/ndx-yr.htm
It is the archives of Origins magazine. It is a quarterly journal that discusses various aspects of the questions surrounding origins, evolution, intelligent design etc. They examine research, do some of their own, etc.
Each issue has some literature review, editorials and actual research, etc.
Some of the of the information in the older ones could of course be outdated, which is just the nature of science. You will also note they have a general articles section on the parent site. They acknowledge that those who promote intelligent design do indeed have a number of questions to answer. But they also have some evidence on their side.
The truth is that both camps are trying to look at the data available. Both sides, if they are honest, have some bias. Certainly talkorigins does. Their goal is to be a clearing house for arguments against intelligent design. Does that sound like a purely scientific source? No more than creationist sites. So we should read both with the knowledge in mind that they are approaching it from one angle.
Below are a few of the evidences I see for intelligent design. In fact, there is a fair amount of evidence in regard to the strata, genetics, fossil record, etc. that supports intelligent design. The biggest issue I see for creationists (some may object to the term, but it is clearly descriptive) is radiometric dating. There is no doubt that it, while often problematic, has in fact had some predictive value in some regards. There is no shame is saying we don't understand how radiometric dating fits with our theory. Every theory has things that don't fit. Which is why the evidence is always just that. Data that both use to support their side, but which no side can completely account for in every respect. Since science does not claim to give absolutes, that is not surprising.
Some evidence of a short/earth, catastrophic model. These are of course not exhaustive.
I. Strata.
1. widespread evidence of catastraphism is now acknowledged by both sides in the debate. Gradualism is no longer seen as the sole mechanism for bringing about much of what we see in the strata.
2. flat contact points on various strata, rather than the erosion we would expect from many years of erosion. This is more in line with under water deposition. On the top layer we see tons of erosion. But little is found in the lower layers.
3. Signs of soft forming of the layers simultaneously. For instance, we have samples of spikes jutting through several strata. Some explain this by saying that it is due to thrusting, forces pushing it through. While there is much evidence that is was pushed through, the problem is we see no evidence of cracks etc as would have to happen had those strata been established.
We also see mixing of strata, etc. in parts. This too would not happen if the layers were not soft.
4. Missing strata in places, or even rearranged strata. This is also consistent with underwater deposition, as are the flat contacts, soft layers etc. The strata is only where the material was when the deposition took place.
5. New evidence has shown that glaciation occurs and melts far faster than previously believed, reducing the time for an ice age to a rather short duration, likely brought on shortly after the flood by huge impacts of meteoric activity. The meteorite activity on the top layer shows little sign of erosion over time as we would expect if they were millions of years old, indicating relatively recent activity.
6. There are many deposits of saltwater elements (marine fossils etc.) intermixed with mammals indicating that these areas were once inundated with sea water.
7. The water from the deep and from the atmosphere above during a flood event, could press down the continental plates under the weight, and many feel would tip them. The water drains to one part exposing land as it goes. Gradually the plates rise upward. This could explain the marine deposits, and it also explains why we see strata that show evidence of tremendous rupture where there was upward motion of the strata where all of them followed together (again suggesting soft deposits), and at times, right next to them, areas that did NOT follow together as nicely, but went up so fast they caused a fault, ripping the elements upward faster.
8. The shape of the grand canyon etc. cuts is suggestive of rapid cutting through probably soft material, not of slow cutting over time through solid rock. When we look at current day mud slides etc. we see similar shapes. Moreover you have channels cut through hills, supposedly by rivers. How would water do that? It would just run down the hill.
II. Fossil record
1. While sites such as talkorigins give reasons why they feel this is the case we fail to see a complete tree of transitional forms. To account for this the notion of punctuated equilibrium was formed, the idea being that actual transitions can happen in a relatively short amount of time (relative in light of hundreds of millions to start with), and that the resulting transitional forms are less likely to fossilize given the requirements for fossilization. That is all fine, but reasons why you don't have evidence are not the same as evidence. We simply don't have anywhere near a complete fossil record of transitional forms. The burden of evidence is on evolutionists if they wish to show speciation. What we do have is inference based on similar traits etc.
Now, is that to say that we don't see some evidence of shared characteristics,. Etc.? No. But even those in Talkorigins do not claim that what they see as examples of transitional forms are direct lineage. They simply have similar characteristics. They note that direct lineage would be hard to prove anyway.
2. Even in the case of human evolutionary examples the ones cited were concurrent with man, not previous to them. The actual view of those who advocate evolution, which I will call evolutionists, despite some not wanting us to, because it is descriptive and an easy term to use, is not that we evolved from Lucy. In fact, Lucy and her kind were present at the same time as man. And were likely simply apes. The real view is that Lucy, if interpreted as anything other than an ape, has characteristics that would be present in the previous ancestor. But we have never found that previous ancestor.
III. Genetics
1. Each instance of diversity, every addition of an atom, of a trait, of an interdependence of systems, etc. must come from a genotype change. In other words, many seem to think that evolution says that natural selection causes diversity. This is simply not true. Natural selection occurs at the Phenotype levelwhat the animal is like not the genotype levelthe animal's genes. So it by definition cannot promote diversity. In fact, natural selection by its very nature trims down diversity.
Natural selection selects for extinction those representatives of diversity that don't hack it. So by its nature it is limiting diversity. Not all that is diverse is fit to survive.
So the only mechanism for diversity is mutation. What happens at the genetic level. The problem is the vast majority of mutations either have no effect, or deleterious effect. Very few are actually positive. And then you have the problem that they must be furthered in the next generation, beating out the others. Sometimes, even those which are less adapted simply don't survive long enough to further the adaptation.
Even those mutations which have no effect, those that produce what some call Junk DNA are now believed to have some effect. In fact, the whole notion of junk DNA is being largely questioned, as what appears to be junk, is in fact quite critical.
So the upshot is, there is an ENORMOUS amount of mutation that must
a. be helpful for selection
b. be furthered in later generations
That must occur to go from a single celled organism to the massively complex systems we see today.
This of course leads to discussions of irreducible complexity, the buzz word made popular by Behe, etc.
Now some on talkorigins have pointed to examples of how irreducibly complex organisms could come about. But often they fail in two regards.
a. They fail to account for all of the complexitiesthe very question in play. They tend to summarize steps in the process, rather than dealing with the particulars.
b. Whatever possible schematics they show for how the process might have brought about something irreducibly complex, they fail to show specific examples in the fossil record where these steps are verified. Again, possibilities are not evidence. They are possibilities. Now of course, creationists also give possibilities. I did myself above in referring to the possible behavior of tectonic plates during a flood event. Some things we can never demonstrate because we simply cannot recreate them. So possibilities are not bad. They simply point out our limitations. But possibilities are still just that. They are not fact.
2. A popular, and much debated, illustration of the genetic problem is Haldane's dilemma. Here it is in a nutshell:
Imagine a population of 100,000 of those [pre-human] organisms quietly evolving their way to humanity. For easy visualization, I'll have you imagine a scenario that favors rapid evolution. Imagine evolution happens like this. Every generation, one male and one female receive a beneficial mutation so advantageous that the 999,998 others die off immediately, and the population is then replenished in one generation by the surviving couple. Imagine evolution happens like this, generation after generation, for ten million years. How many beneficial mutations could be substituted at this crashing pace? One per generation -- or 500,000 nucleotides. That's 0.014 percent of the genome. (That is a minuscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees).
Now of course the original dilemma has some problems:
a. it assumes only one mutation per generation..ie that they would only happen one at a time.
b. It assumes that the whole non- mutated population must die off and be replaced by mutated specimens.
c. The example is regarding differences between chimpanzees and humans, since they are the closest. But of course, the pre-human ancestor's DNA is unknown. What we can determine though is that the LEAST that would do, and that is unlikely, is cut the problem in half. 1.5 percent of the genome, accounting for their branch and ours going completely different directions, which is somewhat unlikely since the adaptive pressures are the same, so the same mutations would seem to be favored.
d. Some would say that a lot of that 3 percent is "junk DNA" but as I already said, that argument is not terribly valid since the opinion on junk DNA is changing.
These are problems, but they don't really address the real issue. It is still rather unlikely that you would get one positive mutation per generation. That is why he states he is giving a rather impossible scenario that favors evolution. They of course say his scenario was unrealistic...but that was the point. It is unrealistic in a way that favors evolution. Getting one positive one is absurdly unlikely. Getting one that lasts and predominates is even more unlikely. Having all that happen still doesn't allow time for the scenario presented for human evolution.
Second, whether the population dies off or is substituted immediately doesn't matter. You are still postulating one positive net mutation per generation which actually is preserved in some population. Even then you are WAY short of the necessary 2 to 3 percent of the genome in the required time.
Evolutionists, not creationists are the ones who have something to prove when it comes to the rate of beneficial mutations, the solution to which is not immediately obvious. It is great to posit huge periods of time for evolution, but that still doesn't mean it happens at the rate necessary. And when you tie certain elements of evolution (human for instance) to particular time frames, then you have to show that they could happen in that time frame.
3. Breeding of dogs, etc., shows an incredible amount of diversity present that can lead to a number of phenotypes.
When we see slightly different animals in fossils we call them new species. But the truth is that many animals today have widely varying features, phenotypes, but can be accounted for with the same genotype, through diversity. In other words, the key to diversity is the rich built in diversity, not just the mutations that happen. Since most mutations are neutral (which itself is debatable) or deleterious they don't tend to persist.
For instance, saber tooth tigers are often seen as predecessors to modern tigers by those who don't know better. But the truth is that there were modern tigers with normal teeth right next to the others. What we see is that the saber tooth tigers were the upper end of the range in a more diverse population. This is precisely what we could expect in a post-flood world, with little competition, full of niches. The animals spread out over a new earth and had less competition, so they could express far more diversity without it being selected out.
Again, the dire wolf, etc. are all bigger than their modern counterpart, but are pretty much wolves.
These are all variations we see within the phenotype that are allowed by some niches, but disallowed at other times by competitive pressures. Just as tall humans prevail in times of plenty, within a few generations blossoming all over, but short humans prevail in times of scarcity. Again a few generations makes a big difference.
The original genetic diversity is huge. Mutations are not all that necessary to show some of the diversity that we have in the fossil record or today
This is in fact precisely the type of situation we would see after a Genesis type flood. You have a very limited population that would spread out over large areas of now competitor free niches. It would lead to a huge amount of seeming diversity, which would really be devolution into various new forms due to lack of competition in new niches. Creatures that could not survive before now could. Certain creatures would be lost in a flood...dinos etc. And certain species would simply die out, perhaps after the flood etc.
In the final analysis it is a choice that we have to make between two competing ways of looking at the data. You may well be convinced that evolutionists explain the data better. Fair enough. I am not. Either way, neither camp has all the answers. They are inferring from the data.
