Q&A: Evolution
Evolution
Question
Hello,
In all your books and statements, in writing and orally, the idea runs like a common thread that it is clear evolution took place, except that the laws of nature that make it possible were determined by the Creator.
I walk around with the feeling that if this were not the only way to deny creation, it (the theory of evolution—and forgive me for not calling it the fact of evolution) would have been thrown into the trash can of scientific theories long ago, and in an embarrassing way. The holes that exist in this theory could not survive in any other scientific theory known to us. My question is: could those parts of this theory, from which you conclude that it is clear evolution occurred, not have been interpreted differently, if science made even a bit of the effort it knows how to make, and interpreted them in a thousand other ways? The first example that comes to mind is the similarity in the number of retroviruses between humans and apes, which supposedly proves that they have a common ancestor.
Answer
I do not argue with feelings. If this interests you, move beyond feelings and check the professional literature.
Discussion on Answer
No. These things are found everywhere, and you are welcome to turn to evolutionary researchers if you have objections. You are also mistaken in your methodology. Even if there are no such holes, the simplest and most general explanation is still accepted. Beyond that, it depends on the boundaries you set. You can bring in explanations involving demons and spirits, kabbalistic explanations, faith-based ones, etc.
Aren't you mocking my argument a bit? Did I ask to bring in explanations with demons and spirits, etc.? An example of holes in evolutionary theory? Is that a serious question? It is full of holes that every work on the theory—including your own books—mentions, and the more biological research develops, the larger the holes become. I think the spirit of my question is clear, and it still stands. And please do not dismiss feelings. Many of the great scientific discoveries grew out of feelings, including the theory of evolution. Not that I am putting myself in the same line as scientists in general, and the great ones in particular.
If the ether theory, in its time, had been the only one capable of explaining a world without a Creator, then even the Michelson-Morley experiment would not have refuted it, and we would have continued living with it.
The statistical refutations of evolution are many times stronger—immeasurably so—than the refutation of the ether theory by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
You too are confusing evolution with the mechanism, which really is nonsense.
Could you please give an example of holes in evolutionary theory that could not exist in any other scientific theory known to us?