Arguments for and against Creationism in American schools

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The mechanics of evolution are measured in generations. With each generation, there may be a slight mutation, not always one that can be measured, and not always one that is visibly applicable to the process of evolution. However, slight mutations there are, because of the imperfection of DNA reproduction, and a competitive selection process there is, both in logic and in evidence. If there is a trend towards a certain direction, these distinctive products can be called subspecies. Scientists have set a high bar, however, for the definition of species, which is something which can reproduce with itself, but not with another different species. Given the short history of the scientific process, is it surprising that we have not yet observed, under laboratory conditions, something which takes so long to happen?

None of this has actually been proven. I don't dissagree in principle but there is no proof. All we have seen are changes within species, and most of those involve breeding for already existing recessive traits. I don't know of a single instnace where we have evidence of, for example, a fly growing a sting like a bee.

I also don't know of any studies that have demonstrated actual mutations in the wild, only the accumulation of existing traits through selective breeding.

My problem is not with evolution but with puritanical Darwinism, I think that the possibility that the genetic code might be altered by outside influences, e.g. a virus, are also things that need to be considered. What I'm talking about is the much decried Lamarkism.

Darwinism is rapidly turning into Dawkinism and it's becoming inflexable, just like a fundamentalist religion.