By STEVECARD
Updated: Fri, 07 May 2010 14:51:01 UTC

It seems to me that those who question Evolution, or the theory of Natural Selection through random genetic mutation are labelled as creationists who believe in the flying Spaghetti monster. This makes it easy for Richard Dawkins to to reject any challenge to Darwin's theory as the ranting of the deluded religious fanatics.

I am not religious and share Richard Dawkins views on religion, but I do question Evolution. I don't think the theory provided the answers necessary to account for the origin of life or its complexity.

The main stumbling block for me is irreducible complexity. I cannot see how it is possible for something as complex as the eye or Flagellum to have come into existence through random mutation. The thought that these complex mechanisms arrived complete through some astronomically improbable single mutation is less likely than the flying spaghetti monster. On the other hand, there are no evolutionary advantages to the intermediate stages of these complex mechanisms.

Another problem with the theory, which Darwin himself admitted would be fatal to his theory, is the total absence of intermediate evolutionary fossil evidence between species, or the sudden appearance of species during the Cambrian period.

There are big holes in the theory of Evolution and its just not good enough to defend it on the basis of ... well have you got a better idea. 

TAGGED: CREATIONISM, DARWIN, EVOLUTION