If evolutionary theory is so wrong then why is it used?

Heh, yeah, I shoulda added "leading up to speciation".

Thanks.

It was just one of those points I could never seem to understand, how one could accept Micro- and not Macro-Evolution.

Well ok...first off all, I am not looking for a debate so PLEASE don't attack me.

We talked about that question in Bible study last Sunday night. And basically we came up with this idea...it's just what we think and some good points were brought up...it's not neccessairly why Evolution is used...it's just what we came up with.

The Evolutionary theory is so widely used and accepted is because some people tend to think that because it is scientifical, then it must be true because there is "scientific evidence." Some tend to associate Science with the absolute truth. The evolutionary theory is just that--a theory. If it were the truth it wouldn't be a theory it would be a fact. The evolutionary theory is backed up by "scientific facts." The Creation theory is backed up by the Bible and by having faith and believing that the Bible is true. To a non-Christian and/or a person who doesn't know God, one can see why it would be easier to believe in the Evolution theory...because there is "evidence." To believe in the Creation theory I think it takes a lot faith and trusting in God that HE created everything and that nothing was a mistake. Did any of that make sense?

First of all, you have to get over this "theory" idea. Gravity is also just a theory of how certain things work, but it is almost universally accepted. Evolution is the same way, an explanation of how things work in biology, and one that is also almost universally accepted. In fact, the specific details of the current theory of gravity is right now more in doubt that the theory of evolution due to some new discoveries and concepts. Which just shows that science doesn't just blindly go with what the "community" has accepted as true, they constantly challenge and probe and seek to falsify.

In fact, this falsification concept is what must be understood. It is not just that there is evidence to support it (which there is), it is also that no one has been able to falsify it. As soon as a theory is developed, the very first step, even by the theory's author before it is presented, is to try to prove it wrong. If this can't be done for a long enough time, after enough scrutiny, it will come to be accepted as more and more likely to be true. Eventually, even though still a theory, it is accepted as the way things work. Now it is just a matter of figuring out all the details as it applies to various situations.

Science would never expect theories to become facts, that is just a lack of understanding of how science works. This is why even AIG, the leading Creationist group, points out that the "science is just a theory" is not an argument Creationists should use.

I don't really care if what I said was using incorrect defintions. I posted something to respond to a question and I get ripped to pieces. That is exactly why I don't post in these forums.

But this is a debate forum, and a debate thread.

You cannot expect to put up a piece of flawed information and hope not to have anyone contradict you by saying "I'm not looking for a debate".

That's tantamount to walking into a pit-fight, saying "I don't want a fight", punching someone, and expecting to walk out of there.

Belle said:

I don't really care if what I said was using incorrect defintions. I posted something to respond to a question and I get ripped to pieces. That is exactly why I don't post in these forums.

Click to expand...

If someone posted that God didn't exist, and used a few out-of-context bible quotes to back him up he'd get ripped to pieces too. I'm sorry, but your post basically misused the term theory (It's the THEORY of gravity too, not the FACT of gravity) to attempt to prove a point.

The only book of the group mentioned above that I've read is "Darwins Black Box." The rebuttal to irreducible complex systems linked above isn't very convincing even when discussing a mouse trap versus the clotting factor of blood which is tremendously more complex. To push the argument (irreducible complexity) aside by merely stating we just haven't found the answer (alternative function a step down the latter of complexity) isn't a strong argument to base ones "faith" in evolution.

I'm also of the understanding that quite a few former evolutionist (that don't necessarily advance the creationist theory) have admitted to very serious questions and misgivings regarding the evolutionary theory, so much so that they feel it is very unlikely that it holds the answers for the existance of life even given a five billion year old earth.

pmh1nic said:

The only book of the group mentioned above that I've read is "Darwins Black Box." The rebuttal to irreducible complex systems linked above isn't very convincing even when discussing a mouse trap versus the clotting factor of blood which is tremendously more complex. To push the argument (irreducible complexity) aside by merely stating we just haven't found the answer (alternative function a step down the latter of complexity) isn't a strong argument to base ones "faith" in evolution.

Click to expand...

Isn't irreducible complexity simply an argument that we haven't found the answer, therefore God Did It? How is this argument better. It is simply a God of the Gaps argument, an as the past has shown us, that doesn't make good science, and in the end doesn't make good theology either because it allows God to be falsified.

I'm also of the understanding that quite a few former evolutionist (that don't necessarily advance the creationist theory) have admitted to very serious questions and misgivings regarding the evolutionary theory, so much so that they feel it is very unlikely that it holds the answers for the existance of life even given a five billion year old earth.

Click to expand...

Can you name one that doesn't do so based on religious rather than scientific reasons? Can you name one that does this based on evidence alone or that can present a better theory?

Belle said:

The Evolutionary theory is so widely used and accepted is because some people tend to think that because it is scientifical, then it must be true because there is "scientific evidence." Some tend to associate Science with the absolute truth. The evolutionary theory is just that--a theory. If it were the truth it wouldn't be a theory it would be a fact. The evolutionary theory is backed up by "scientific facts." The Creation theory is backed up by the Bible and by having faith and believing that the Bible is true. To a non-Christian and/or a person who doesn't know God, one can see why it would be easier to believe in the Evolution theory...because there is "evidence." To believe in the Creation theory I think it takes a lot faith and trusting in God that HE created everything and that nothing was a mistake. Did any of that make sense?

Click to expand...

Belle, this isn't an attack. It is a discussion of your ideas. You are going to see that I don't agree with the idea. Remember, I don't agree with the idea. The idea and you are separate. You are not the idea. With me so far?

Both LateCretaceous and Vance have pointed out that the terms "fact" and "theory" are used incorrectly.

Remember, Round Earth is a theory. That the sun is at the center of the solar system is a theory. I bet you think both are "facts", don't you? But they are not. They are theories to explain the data (facts).

However, both of those theories are so well supported by data (facts) that it is perverse not to accept them as (provisionally) true and facts in their own right. So, we accept that the earth is round and plan the routes of ships and airplanes on that "fact". When the ships and airplanes arrive at their destinations on time that become even more support for the theory.

With me so far?
Evolution is the same way. It is supported by so much data (facts) that we accept it as provisionally true. All of medical science accepts common ancestry. We choose our animal models to test new drugs and treatments on it. We plan our antibiotic treatments on the fact of natural selection. That the new drugs and treatments work and that antibiotic-resistant bacteria arise become more support for evolution.


Now, what you call "the Bible" is really your interpretation of Genesis 1-3. It's important to remember that we are not dealing with some absolute "the Bible" but in how you and your fellow people interpret that part of the Bible. An interpretation by fallen, fallible people.

Now, what does science study? Where do we find those "facts" and "scientific evidence"? In the universe, right? But what is the universe and how did it get there?

Well God created the universe and thus it is God's Creation. Right? So science is also studying God. In fact, you can look at Creation as God's second book. Now, the two books of God can't contradict. God had a lot of limitations getting the Bible written. He had to work thru humans and all their limitations to tell how He created. And remember, those people could not have understood evolution any more than a 2 year old can understand the details about televisions and how they work.

But in Creation God could just leave the evidence and wait until people were smart enought to figure it out for themselves.

Bottom line: the Bible tells you the who and why of creation. It tells you God created. God's second book, read by science, tells you how God created. And shouldn't we have faith enough to read everything God wrote?

pmh1nic said:

I'm also of the understanding that quite a few former evolutionist (that don't necessarily advance the creationist theory) have admitted to very serious questions and misgivings regarding the evolutionary theory, so much so that they feel it is very unlikely that it holds the answers for the existance of life even given a five billion year old earth.

Click to expand...

The origin of life and evolution are two separate theories. Here, listen to Darwin in Origin of the Species

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

See, Darwin has the first life made directly by a Creator. Evolution assumes the existence of life. Once that first cell exists, then evolution explains the diversity of life on the planet, including the origin of humans.

It is chemistry that holds the answers to the origin of the first life. We can go into this later.

The only book of the group mentioned above that I've read is "Darwins Black Box." The rebuttal to irreducible complex systems linked above isn't very convincing even when discussing a mouse trap versus the clotting factor of blood which is tremendously more complex.

Click to expand...

The article specifically tells you how the blood clotting mechanism can be reached by Darwinian evolution. Remember Behe's claim: it is impossible for Darwinian evolution to produce IC systems. The article shows that it is possible for Darwinian evolution to do this. It is partly due to the fact that Behe made a strawman version of natural selection.

To push the argument (irreducible complexity) aside by merely stating we just haven't found the answer (alternative function a step down the latter of complexity) isn't a strong argument to base ones "faith" in evolution.

.

Click to expand...

There is more to it than that. Doolittle had done a lot of work on the evolution of blood clotting before Behe wrote his book. The problem is that Behe apparently didn't read the literature. In fact, Behe's literature search is the poorest I've ever seen (and I've seen medical students and some grad students do some incredibly poor literature searches). Here are some of Doolittle's papers and papers by others done before Behe published:

1. Doolittle RF, The structure and evolution of vertebrate fibrinogen: a comparison of the
lamprey and mammalian proteins. Adv Exp Med Biol 1990;281:25-37
2. Gray JE, Doolittle RF, Characterization, primary structure, and evolution of lamprey plasma albumin. Protein Sci 1992 Feb;1(2):289-302
3. Doolittle RF, Feng DF, Reconstructing the evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation from a consideration of the amino acid sequences of clotting proteins. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 1987;52:869-874
4. Patthy L, Evolutionary assembly of blood coagulation proteins. Semin Thromb Hemost 1990 Jul;16(3):245-259
5. Blake CC, Harlos K, Holland SK, Exon and domain evolution in the proenzymes of blood coagulation and fibrinolysis. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 1987;52:925-931
6. Doolittle RF, The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation: a case of Yin and Yang. Thromb Haemost 1993 Jul 1;70(1):24-28 Publication Types: Review; Review, tutorial

Just look at the titles. How did Behe miss them? Particularly since PubMed was up and running in 1994 when Behe was writing Darwin's Black Box and Behe states toward the end of the book that there are "no" papers on the subjects he has talked about!

"Isn't irreducible complexity simply an argument that we haven't found the answer, therefore God Did It?"

Not necessarily. But it does beg for an answer to the question of how such a complex biochemical function such as blood clotting could evolve without some obvious related function in a more simplier form. If you find a complex functioning system the more plausible answer is it was designed. The onus is IMHO on the side of evolutionist to explain how such a complex biochemical function could evolve given no obvious (or evident after much study and research) functioning, less complex system has been found.

"Can you name one that doesn't do so based on religious rather than scientific reasons? Can you name one that does this based on evidence alone or that can present a better theory?"

Since I don't have a high enough post count I couldn't post a direct link but this article might provide some answers.

Rejection on Scientific Grounds
​

​

B. Leith, who catalogued some of the dissent in The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982) observes, "The theory of life that undermined nineteenth century religion has virtually become a religion itself and in turn is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationist and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reasons.
​

The main thrust of the​

criticism comes from within science itself."22 A few recent examples are science journalist and engineer Richard Milton’s Shattering the Myth of Darwinism (1997) and biophysicist Lee M. Spetner’s Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern
​

Theory of Evolution​

​

(1997).
​

Scientists Who Face the Evidence​

​

Evolutionists may declare that "denying Darwin is intellectually impossible," as Herbert Gintis did in Commentary magazine (September 1996) or that "the scientific community has no doubts" about evolution as an article in Scientific American (October 1997) claimed. But consider a few examples of the dissent culled from our own research.
​

Professor Wolfgang Smith received his Ph.D. in Mathematics from Columbia University. He has held faculty positions at the Massachusetts Institutes of Technology and UCLA. He writes,​

I am opposed to Darwinism, or better said, to the transformist hypothesis as such, no matter what one takes to be the mechanism or cause (even perhaps teleological or theistic) of the postulated macroevolutionary leaps. I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted Weltanschauung [worldview] towhich a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe. 23
​

Dr. R. Merle d’Aubigne, head of the Orthopedic Department at the University of Paris remarks,
​

Sir John Eccles, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine says of evolution in "A Divine Design," "One of its weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged…."​

Professor Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular Biology and Research Virologist to the Virus Laboratory, University of California Berkeley and recipient of numerous prestigious awards, accepts non-Darwinian evolution but still remarks, "Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance."​

Nobelist and evolutionist Dr. Robert A. Millikan comments, "The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove."​

Dr. Albert Fleishmann, zoologist at Erlangen University, writes, "The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."​

Famous Canadian geologist William Dawson says, "the record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists."​

The highly regarded noncreationist anti-Darwinian French scientist Grasse says, "The explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved."​

Ken Hsu, the evolutionist professor at the Geological Institute in Zurich, E.T.H., and former president of the International Association of Sedimentologists, writes, "We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It’s about time we cry: ‘The Emperor has no clothes.’"​

Lemoine, a former president of the Geological Society of France and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, as well as the editor of the​

Julio Garrido, Sc.D., a member of the Spanish Royal Academy of Science and a former president of the French Society of Crystallography and Mineralogy quotes French scholar and mathematician Georges Salet concerning the last 150 years of attempts to find evidence for evolution or even explanations of it: "During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line, there has been no discovery of anything [confirming evolution]."​

33
​

Garrido also quotes French evolutionist Jen Rostand who writes, "The theory of evolution gives no answer to the important problem of the origin of life and presents only fallacious solutions to the problem of the nature of evolutive transformations…[Because of this situation] We are condemned to believe in evolution…. Perhaps we are now in a worse position than in 1850 because we have searched for one century and we have the impression that the different hypotheses are now exhausted."​

34
​

Dr. Garrido himself writes that evolution "is a simplistic idea, almost an infantile idea" and even that it is a philosophical disease: "The evolutionary theory is one of the ‘diseases,’ because it is the corruption of philosophical prejudices regarding a pure scientific question."​

35
​

An article by Howard Byington Holroyd, Ph.D., retired head of the Department of Physics, Augustana College, Rock Island, Illinois, points out that evolution is nonsense. His research and calculations show "far beyond any reasonable doubt, that this theory is nothing more than physical and mathematical nonsense."​

36
​

R. Clyde McCone, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach, states, "as an anthropologist, I object to evolution on the anthropological grounds that I have presented. There are no data for evolution."​

37
​

Roger Haines, Jr., J.D., research attorney for the California Third District Court of Appeals, Sacramento, writes that, "The arguments for macroevolution fail at every significant level when confronted by the facts."​

38
​

Finally, evolutionist and zoologist with the Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton (England), G. A. Kerkut writes the following conclusions in his​

Implications of Evolution. He refers to the seven basic assumptions of evolution and assesses their validity:
​

The first assumption was that non-living things gave rise to living material. This is still just an assumption…. There is, however, little evidence in favor of biogenesis and as yet we have no indication that it can be performed…. It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur….
​

The second assumption was that biogenesis occurred only once. This again is a matter for belief rather than proof….
​

The third assumption was that Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated…. We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated.
​

The fourth assumption was that the Protozoa gave rise to the Metazoa…. Here again nothing definite is known….
​

The fifth assumption was that the various invertebrate phyla are interrelated…. The evidence, then for the affinities of the majority of the invertebrates is tenuous and circumstantial; not the type of evidence that would allow one to form a verdict of definite relationships.
​

The sixth assumption [is] that the invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates…. As Berrill states, "in a sense this account is science fiction."
​

We are on somewhat stronger ground with the seventh assumption that the fish, amphibia, reptiles, birds, and mammals are interrelated. There is the fossil evidence to help us here, though many of the key transitions are not welldocumented and we have as yet to obtain a satisfactory objective method of dating the fossils…. The evidence that we have at present is insufficient to allow us to decide the answer to these problems.​

​

39
​

Kerkut goes on to state that, in essence, evolution has to be taken on pure faith: the evidence is circumstantial and much of it can be argued either way. He says of these initial assumptions for evolution, "The evidence is still lacking for most of them."​

40
​

Scientists may claim evolution is a demonstrated fact, and this may routinely be stated in student textbooks, but this is wrong. Creationists have pointed this out for decades. And not without good cause.
​

Footnotes:
​

21. In Ronald Bailey, "Origin of the Specious: Why Do Neo-Conservatives Doubt Darwin?"
​

Reason​

​

, July 1997, p. 24.
​

22. B. Leith,​

The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts About Darwinism (1982), pp.
​

10-11 in Bird,​

Origin…Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 2, emphasis added.
​

23. Wolfgang Smith, "The Universe Is Ultimately to Be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic
​

Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.),​

Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113.
​

24. Merle d’Aubigne, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing
​

Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds​

.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158.
​

25. Sir John Eccles, "A Divine Design: Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and
​

Varghese (eds.),​

Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 163.
​

26. Harry Rubin, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in
​

Margenau and Varghese (eds,),​

Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203.
​

27. M. Bowden,​

The Rise of the Evolution Fraud (An Exposure of Its Roots) (San Diego:
​

Creation Life Publishers, 1982), pp. 216, 218.
​

28. Ibid.
​

29. Ibid.
​

30. Pierre-P. Grasse,​

The Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press,
​

1977), p. 202.
​

31. Hsu, reply,​

Geology, Vol.15 (1987), p. 177; Hsu, "Darwin’s Three Mistakes," Geology,
​

Vol. 14, pp. 532-35 (1986) in Bird, Vol. 2, p. 516.
​

32. Lemoine,​

Introduction: De L’Evolution? in 5 Encyclopedie Francaise 06-6 (P. Lemoine,
​

ed., 1937), emphasis added, in Bird,​

Origin…Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 151.
​

33. Julio Garrido, "Evolution and Molecular Biology,"​

Creation Research Society Quarterly,
​

Dec. 1973, p. 167.
​

34. Ibid, p. 168.
​

35. Ibid.
​

36. Howard Byington Holroyd, "Darwinism Is Physical and Mathematical Nonsense,"​

Creation
​

Research Society Quarterly​

​

, June 1972, p. 5.
​

37. R. Clyde McCone, "Three Levels of Anthropological Objection to Evolution,"​

Creation
​

Research Society Quarterly​

​

, March 1973, p. 209.
​

38. Roger Haines, Jr., "Macroevolution Questioned,"​

Creation Research Society Quarterly,
​

Dec. 1976, p. 169.
​

39. G. A. Kerkut,​

Implications of Evolution (Pergammon Press, 1960), pp. 150-53.
​

40. Ibid, p. 150.
​

Your post doesn't tell me which ones are basing their opinion on evidence. It includes several known creationists, several partial quotes which would need to be looked at in context, and several mathamaticians and physicist who do not have qualifiations in biology.

Care to weed it down a bit?



You have 30-40 year old references, many published by Creationist resources.

Lee Spetner - Creationist Physicist - not a biologist.

Wolfgang Smith - Creationist mathametician

Sir John Eccles argues against atheism and the formation of 'self or soul'.

The Harry Rubin quote discusses 'chance' which is a strawman of evolution.

Dr. Robert A. Millikan properly states that evolution can not be proven, it can only be falsified, which has not been done. No scientific theory can be 'proven'.

The quote from Albert Fleishmann is now 45 years old. You would need to know what his opinion is on the evidence of the last 45 years. Science doesn't stand still.

Clyde McCone is a young earther and creationist.

The material from Kerkut was written in 1960 and now he openly admits that the evidence has come a long way to answering the questions he posed. This is evidenced by the material on his own homepage.
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~gk/scifi/evolves.htm

Those are just a few I could pull from your cut and paste. Is there one in particular we could discuss and determine if indeed they do not accept the evidence for evolution based on that evidence alone. This would mean that we need to make sure that 1) they have looked at the evidence (current evidence, all the evidence) and 2) They have qualifications to judge it and 3) They are not predisposed to a young earth creation worldview as dictated by their beliefs and religion.

Care to give it a go?

notto

So if a scientist leans more towards the creationist or intelligent design view of origins then he is no longer a scientist? How about the evolutionist? Do they "believe" in evolutionist because being an atheist they cannot accept intelligent design or because there is scientific FACT that proves evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. And what does in matter where the paper or research is published as long as it has strong scientific support?

True science doesn't stand still but the evidence for creation hasn't gotten any stronger in the last 30 years. But some of the basic science (laws of thermodynamics) are as true today (laws which defy the idea of complexity from the simply) having changed). It's also my understanding that advances in our understanding of biochemistry have made the concept of the origins of life being random chance more unlikely. To this day no transitional links have been found, mutations are still negative or at best neutral, life has never been created in a lab. So what was true 30 years ago is still true today.

pmh1nic,

How many wrong statements can you fit in one sentence.

Have you ever checked this stuff out?

Do a google search for transitional forms (fossils.)

By the way, how do you get a more ordered (less entropy) snowflake from a raindrop. According to your (WRONG) thermodynamic statement this shouldn't happen.

pmh1nic said:

notto

So if a scientist leans more towards the creationist or intelligent design view of origins then he is no longer a scientist? How about the evolutionist? Do they "believe" in evolutionist because being an atheist they cannot accept intelligent design or because there is scientific FACT that proves evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. And what does in matter where the paper or research is published as long as it has strong scientific support?

Click to expand...

A few things.

1) Most scientists in the United States are Christian AND accept evolution.

2) If you claim to adhere to a religious belief and claim that you will deny any evidence that contradicts that belief, you are no longer doing science.

3) Intelligent Design is an unfalsifyable belief and is not science. It is simply a sophisticated God of the Gaps argument.

4) Why would I trust a scientific paper from a group that has already claimed that they would reject any evidence that does not fit within their preestablished assumptions? Again, this is not how science is done.

5) Please show me one paper with strong scientific support from a Creation ministry of evangelism source (Why do these organizations consider themselves ministries? I thought they were doing science.)

pmh1nic said:

True science doesn't stand still but the evidence for creation hasn't gotten any stronger in the last 30 years. But some of the basic science (laws of thermodynamics) are as true today (laws which defy the idea of complexity from the simply) having changed). It's also my understanding that advances in our understanding of biochemistry have made the concept of the origins of life being random chance more unlikely. To this day no transitional links have been found, mutations are still negative or at best neutral, life has never been created in a lab. So what was true 30 years ago is still true today.

Click to expand...

You are correct, evidence for the YEC version of creation hasn't gotten any stronger, that is why it was falsified over 200 years ago by Christians.

As far as the last 30 years, there have been tremendous finds related to geology, paleontology, and genetics. Each new finding only further supports evolutionary theory.

The main point is, that in at least one example, the scientist quoted in your source has information on his website that clearly says that his assumptions from years ago and his questions about evolution have been for the most part answered and he accepts evolution. Why would all of these old sources still need to be used? Are there not any current ones that would paint a better story?

Would you accept an argument that uses quotes that say that man will never fly and if God intented him to, he would have given us wings? The age of sources is directly related to their validity in support of an argument. Much has changed in the areas related to biology in the last 30 years. DNA was only uncovered and understood 50 years ago. To use sources from 30 years ago would be to exclude what we have been able to understand about it for over half the time we have even know it existed.