Yes, but why is it wrong?

(And you will find justification for the inquisition in the teachings of Jesus, not.)

I also have a great post, Universal Acid, here:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/04/08/universal-acid/

Even some non-Christians understand the implications of evolutionary thinking.

Our morality is definitely complex. I would argue that the origins of morality are indeed Darwinian in nature–our selfish genes predict that it isn’t adaptive to kill off others (who might be potential mates/companions/otherwise advantageous to us in some way)–but our morality has undergone cultural evolution, too. Furthermore, the basics of morality–like not killing people–are present in every culture, from every religious/non-religious background across the globe. If you say Christians only behave morally (I use this term loosely *COUGH* THE INQUISITION *COUGH*) because of their belief in the Christian God, then what’s the motivation for the other five billion moral people in the world?

Also, animals also display altruism, so it’s not something uniquely human, either. This suggests an evolutionary origin.

Re the ‘useless’ whale bones, there is an article here:
http://www.darwinisdead.com/an_email_exchange_regarding.htm

If I were a whale, I would miss them very much, even to the point of extinction.

On Darwinism and the bloodiest century ever, the links between atheism and mass murder are many. If there is no God, why is it wrong to eat your neighbour? Might is right. And tasty.

Not a single one I’ve met would say that. Once again, individuals do not evolve; populations do. From the perspective of the transitional organism, it’s not transitioning at all! Such fossils merely demonstrate incremental changes from generation to generation. So, it’s not like a bird having half-wings; the “half-wings” themselves weren’t used for flying at all. They served a different adaptive purpose–perhaps to keep warm. I think you’re focussing too much on the end result (wings) than on the process of getting there.

Vestigial structures are evidence of this. Take a look at the hindleg bones of the whale–they serve no purpose in walking, obviously. In fact, they’re entirely useless altogether. They’re remnants of a land-dwelling ancestor. Pretty poor “design”, wouldn’t you agree? Similarly, the “wings” of penguins are not used for flight at all, but they’ve been adapted to a whole new purpose: swimming. These are just a couple of examples. Just because some organ or structure doesn’t serve the purpose we know it does today, that doesn’t mean it didn’t have some other purpose for the “transitional” organism.

And sure, I totally agree with your point about prettying up pictures for show. But being arrogant and showy has absolutely no bearing on the truth of a theory. This is reminiscent of another common Creationist argument: Darwinian thought has caused mass-genocide, racism, etc. While most would say that this is false–both Stalin and Hitler had moustaches; perhaps facial hair/i> causes genocide!–it in no way has any bearing on the truth of the theory. There is a difference between what is true and what is comforting.

“Ken Miller debunks Michael Behe’s pseudoscience”

Ken Miller selects one system from within a fully functional “car” (a flagellum) and shows how this system still works on its own. Then he says that because all the systems within this car are similarly made of metal and plastic, that they are all interchangeable.

Not very good ‘debunking’ for such a smart fellow. So what if the fuel injection system still works when you pull it out! Intelligent design is written all over the car. Ad Mr Miller had to use his intelligence to select a section to isolate, which we actually never see isolated in nature.

And that’s the best they can do? Amazing what people will believe. And the poster of the video had the hide to tell the Creationist commenters to come back when they get some education. Don’t get your education from Ken Miller. His flawed paradigm hinders his understanding of basic logic.

Why do these guys always have to resort to artists’ impressions and pretty diagrams of things we actually never, ever see in reality? (Like Miller’s diagrams in this video)

Here’s one of my favourite quotes from an evolutionist:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?”

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.

And get this – Patterson still believes in these ‘transitional’ fossils. At least he is honest enough not to try to fool us with diagrams like Miller.

For my money, the argument for irreducible complexity still stands strong. And Miller’s ridicule of those he disagrees with is unfounded and arrogant. Mine, however…

But we don’t see at all in the fossil record a myriad of hopeful monsters. They are all fully formed. Lining up a series of similar-looking species and claiming it shows development is not helpful. In one case, the so-called primitive form was found not only in the same strata as its far more complex descendant, but was found in the process of being eaten by it.

Re: Irreducible complexity. Watch this for an explanation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

I appreciate your post. I know the story, I just don’t believe that this is what we actually see in nature. Your paradigm is just as ‘a priori’ as mine. To me, it’s just another religion, and its proponents see what they want to see.

And I do believe in irreducible complexity. The fact that there are no fossils of a species actually ‘transitioning’, everything being fully formed and functioning, supports irreducible complexity. Can anyone seriously imagine a half-developed, fully-functioning wing? No? It would not be beneficial, and natural selection would wipe out any such monsters, which makes natural selection the enemy of evolutionary theory.

Evolution is religion. It is an opinion, and the data is either interpreted to fit the paradigm or thrown out.

Thanks for all your comments.

It’s a very common misinterpretation to think of evolution as “totally random.” Evolution is not chance-driven; it is deterministic. Mutations provide the raw material on which natural selection acts.

You’re approaching it the wrong way when you say you want to see evidence of a “car factory.” That is not what evolution predicts. Rather, things develop from the very simple to the very complex, over extraordinarily long times (although not always, as with punctuated equilibrium). Nothing is irreducibly complex.

@ John: Evolutionary theory is a a work in progress, like all of science. We do not know all of the answers. But that doesn’t mean everything we do know is wrong, and nor does it make it appropriate to fill in the gaps with unfalsifiable Gods.

A person inspects the “facts” and forms an opinion.

Precisely. And this is exactly what religion doesn’t do. Creationists have the facts a priori; they know in advance that nothing can shake them from their beliefs. This is a crucial difference between science and religion.