"The Unintended Darwin"

Cyril,

First off, thanks for signing up and taking the time to respond. You have obviously spent some time thinking of these things, so maybe we can both learn something new. Let me just hit a few of your comments point by point.
“And of course, evolution is small change over time. But do not these small changes lead to speciation? Or maybe Apb believes in the theory of punctuated evolution where sometimes change has spurts of rapidity. As for his contention that Evolution is not a philosophy, I must take exception, it is the very definition of Philosophy garbed in the clothing of Science! Macro-evolution has never been observed, it operates to slowly to experiment upon, and the conclusions arrived at are speculative at best.”

Yes, whether the changes are gradual or punctuated, you can end up with new species or speciation. Not sure where you are getting the “evolution is philosophy”. Darwin’s evolution by way of natural selection is first and foremost a scientific theory. In fact, the unifying theory of all of biology. The only places that I have seen it described as a philosophy, religion, or anything but a scientific theory is on creationist web sites and literature. If that this where you are getting your info, I suggest you read up on evolution from biology based literature.

As far as not observing macro-evolution, I’ll dig up a link or two for you to read. Others can explain it much better than me.

“Human ethics are relative and usually dangerous to some particular sub-set of society”

Change that to can be dangerous, and we are in agreement.

“I fail to see where he has the luxury to avoid the evidence that leads to racism in his philosophy of life! Evolutionarily speaking, how can he claim there is only on race? Race is determined on a genetic level and there are slight differences genetically in the diversity of Humanity. To ignore that then he would have to ignore the great diversity of the canine species, there is only one race of dog!”

I have not discussed my philosophy of life. As to the rest, consider this. There is more genetic variation in a single troop of chimpanzees (our closest relative) than there is in all of the people alive today. Yes, we are all that closely related! Certainly there are minor genetic variations between populations, but not much. Biologists long ago abandoned the idea of race in humans cause it just does not work. Local breeding populations is the term most often used. With humans, that’s pretty much the whole planet. Yes, there are many breeds of dogs, but I am talking humans here, not dogs. Big difference!

“Is it not possible that minute change within Homo sapiens could lead to a new branch off the current limb?”

Yes, if a population of humans become separated somehow (no exchanging of genes between that group and anyone else), you could end up with another species of human 100’s of generations down the road, in addition to the current species of human (Homo sapien).

“It is undeniable that they is diversity within the Human race (Home sapiens). Are not these differences genetically generated? Are they not "small difference" and changes from the original appearance of Home sapiens from whatever his ancestor was? Did he not "evolve" from that ancestor incrementally, in tiny "advances"?”

Yes to all of those.

“Is it not possible that each divergent step could lead beyond Home sapiens to a "more evolved" superior creature? To say that the branch of humanity is "set" genetically is to deny the progression evolution has made from the very beginning. If the progressive divergent step does not make the one who has taken it superior to those who have not, then what are we talking about? “
Define “more evolved, superior creature”. Evolution does not suggest that there will ever be a “superior creature”, just one that is better adapted to survive in its current environment. I never suggested that humanity is set genetically. We continue to evolve.

“A closer examination of Genesis One and Two causes the differences to evaporate.”

In rereading these two verses of Genesis, you are correct, there is no mention of a time frame. This opens it up to interpretation. One assumes, possibly incorrectly, that since verse one says god created man and woman, and that verse two, indicates that Adam was shown the garden of eden, and all the animals, and asked to name them, and that later god decides that man needs a companion, that it was at a later time. Either interpretation could be correct, or wrong. If I understand the link that waterdog posted correctly, we the first mention (verse 1) is correct. However, whenever I heard the story in church years ago it was always verse 2.

When man is instructed to go forth and multiply and replenish the earth, does that indicate that there was something prior to the time of Adam? I don’t have an answer, that is why I ask.

Guess my issue with taking the bible literally is that it has been translated various times from different languages, by humans. Changes in language do occur. Further, there are some words or phrases that are not directly translatable between two different languages. As an example of the first, 100 years ago if you called someone “gay” it meant they were happy. Now it means they are a homosexual. Big difference in a short time! Also consider that biblical scholars suggest that were 4 or 5 different authors represented in the first 5 chapters of the bible. This from examining word phrasing, use of different words, etc. in the original texts. Further, some portions of the bible were taken from other sources. The flood story and Noah, for example, were taken almost verbatim from the Epic of Gilgamesh, a Babylonian/Sumerian myth written some 500-600 years before the bible.

“He no doubt think I am an ignorant rube, a science denier, a religious fanatic, and that's okay.”
Nope, not at all. I found your essay well thought out. However, I also found that your comments on evolution quite incorrect.

“He is a lost soul groping in the dark trying to justify his atheism.”

Your opinion, but quite wrong and offensive. 7 billion people in the world, thousands of different religions. Are you so arrogant to suggest that yours is the only correct one? I am quite willing to admit that my religious views (or lack of religion) may be incorrect. Are you?

Waterdog, thanks for the link.