This is the second installment of True Freethinker’s guest blogger program.
Our guest is Rhology from the blog Rhoblogy.Please make our guest feel at home and away we go_
Following is the guest post:
I don’t think this is a particularly new set of ideas or anything, but I can’t recall seeing them discussed often in the channels in which I travel on the worldwide Internetosphere, so I’d like to post them here and invite anyone who holds to Darwinianistical evolutionary theory to comment.Given the great care that the Darwinian camp has taken to differentiate itself from the Intelligent Design stuff, one would think that certainly said camp would be highly, strongly interested in providing evidence for its position, absent ANY INTELLIGENCE involved whatsoever.
Given that, I’d like evidence that evolution from one type of organism to another is occurring TODAY with the following qualifications:
1) A laboratory injects intelligence into the equation. No lab.2) Experiments observed on a REPEATED basis, as good science should be.3) No intelligent (ie, human) manipulation of the events.4) With ALL normal environmental factors present. No control group, no outside interference from intelligent agents (ie, humans).5) With ALL normal other factors present, such as predators, weather, fluctuations in prey, water, and other nourishment.
6) And a good way of judging when the line of organism has become a different type (just for utility’s sake, but I’d call this slightly less interesting or necessary than the other 5).
In other words, is it unreasonable to think that, if you’re presenting what you allege is evidence for a currently-acting process of unguided natural selection acting on random mutations, you could show some evidence of it that is not guided artificial selection acting on partially-random mutations?Is that too much to ask?If so, why?If your response lies along the lines of: “That’s too strict – you’ve defined most of the parameters for normal experimentation out of the question”, does that not mean that you concede that you lack any good evidence for your position over and against the ID position? That your side has spoken far too quickly, with far too much certainty and fervency, with respect to how clear it is that Darwinian evolution is correct and ID is wrong?If not, why not?
