[quote author=Castor Muscular]
For example, one show was about the history of evolutionary thought. It mentioned someone who bred pigeons and managed to get some really weird varieties of pigeons. I forget which scientist they were covering at that point,[/quote]
You should probably go back and find out. It doesn't sound like your "scientist" was actually trained in any of the relevant fields.
but he "reasoned", if you could get such variety among pigeons in such a short time, it stands to reason that -- given enough time and nature taking its own course -- you would get the wide variety of species we see today.
Which is what we have seen with finches, cichlids, butterflies, etc. so it's a reasonable assumption.
This is a classic example of circular thinking. The scientist was looking for a reason to believe in the concept of evolution and managed to "find" it in pigeon breeding.
1. It is not circular thinking. This person was merely extrapolating from a base of known information. If you think his extrapolation was invalid or unwarranted, then by all means point that out (and indicate why). But don't confuse yourself by concluding that extrapolation was circular thinking.
2. As I said earlier: this scientist wasn't much of a scientist if he didn't know about the different evidentiary lines of evolution. If his only method for accepting evolution was pigeon breeding, then I have SUBSTANTIAL reason to doubt his credentials in the field. He was not a scientist in any relevant field: biology, botany, comparative anatomy, etc. He may have been someone who lived 200 years ago or something similar, before any actual research on evolution had been conducted. But no actual scientist in the field would draw a blank, when asked about evidence for common descent or evolutionary processes.
But that's not at all what the exercise in pigeon breeding proves. What the exercise in pigeons really proved was that, given an intelligent force outside of nature (the breeder) you could get a wide variety very quickly. That's not biased thinking or imaginative extrapolation - that's just an observation of what the breeder did.
This is a classic mistake of people who reject science: assuming that because people breed some animals, that variation cannot occur without external "intelligent" acts to guide it. In point of fact, natural selection and mutation also shape species over time. And this occurs without any set goal or intended destination for the species. Whereas humans breed dogs to be faster, better hunters, good companions, whatever - all that happens with natural selection is that individuals who are better suited for the environment survive to produce more offspring.
I like to think of it as a rock in a river. Assume a large, round-shaped (or square-shaped) rock is dropped into a river. If it stays there long enough, the water will eventually erode the rock down and it will become more oval shaped, and eventually long and narrow. The rock has become suited to the river. Through slow erosion, its shape has become long and narrow and the water flows around it with minimal resistance. But if the course of the river changes direction, or if the rock is moved from its position (say, turned 90 degrees), then suddenly the rock is a poor fit for its environment. At that point, the river erosion will increase substantially, and reshape the rock again. But the rock doesn't have any purpose. And the river isn't trying to design a perfect rock.
It's just one force pushing against an object.Just like natural selection.
This is how natural selection operates on species: no design, no goal, no vested interests. External force (natural selection) applies pressure to species, shaping them for whatever the current environment happens to be. Mutation provides the species with differences which may give individual creatures a survival advantage over their peers. If the environment changes, then it's back to square one and suddenly species that used to be well-suited to the old environment are in trouble. Now they're being substantially impacted by natural selection present in the *new* environment.
In just a few years, I saw all the invalid assumptions upon which evolution was based and stopped believing in evolution.
Sounds like you never actually understood evolution in the first place. I have lost count of the number of people who have tried to tell me that they no longer "believe" in evolution, that they studied it and rejected it, yet. But then I start to ask them questions about evolution and it becomes apparent really quickly that they don't have the first clue in the world what evolution actually says.
The stark reality is that a person who cannot accurately describe evolution is not in a position to reject it. You cannot reject what you don't understand. It would be similar to rejecting Christianity because you were told about Santa Claus as a child, but then you saw your parents putting gifts under the tree, lost your faith, and never believed in Christianity after that. If someone told you that over coffee one day, you'd look at them like they had lost their mind. I can hear it now:"What in the WORLD does Santa Claus have to do with....." And so it is with people who reject evolution without actually understanding it.
But it was several years later that I realized it actually is incompatible with the Bible, or at least probably so. If man evolved, then there's no reason to believe God evolved man with an innocent nature.
Truth in the natural world is never incompatible with the Bible. If you believe that God created the universe, then how can His creation be at conflict with His word?
We would most likely have evolved with our sinful nature.
What makes you think that?
