Evolutionists always point out the ability for a species to change over generations as evidence of evolution. As we have discovered in the previous articles, to the extent that such change is limited by the genetic variability built in to the genome, this is unmistakable and is demonstrated every day by the actions of breeders. But you see, they get you nodding your head about how such changes are so easily explained by natural selection and have no need for some outside influence. Then they make the simple suggestion that such small changes continuing to occur over millions of years could produce the incredible variety of life we see today. Yet no examples of this newly proposed phenomenon are given, just the simple examples already given. This is called a bait and switch. The bait is micro evolution and the switch is macro evolution; small change becomes all change.
The whole point too is to appeal to the ability of natural selection. This carries the idea that there is no need for anything supernatural to make it work. I could argue the same way about the heating and cooling system in my house. Once everything is set up, I can go away for weeks at a time and even years and no matter what the weather does, hot or cold, the system will change it's behavior to preserve the temperature I have set for it. It is completely understandable that all these changes going on in my house A/C system need no input from an outside agent to keep it going. That's an amazing thing but have I really demonstrated no need for an outside intelligent agent? No not at all; in fact think of the incredible invention, design and building process that went on for years to make it possible for my house to work this way. There was most definitely a design and a designer. But is there no need for any outside agent after everything gets started? If I go away for months at a time, I still need to pay my utility bill. But the "scientist" trying to observe whether any outside agent were fiddling with things at my house would never know about this.
Speaking of bait and switch which I have just accused the evolutionist of, I was reading an article just now accusing the Intelligent Design movement of the same thing. The article's argues that the ID proponents such as Behe and Dembski insist that their criticism of Darwinism is not religiously motivated, that they are simply pointing out the flaws in the evolutionary science. It quotes Dembksi as saying "Design requires neither magic nor miracles nor a creator." And the article quotes Behe--"Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer." But the article then claims that although they claim no need for a particular designer they obviously are implying God. Inference of Design is the bait, God is the switch.
This is an interesting argument because it recognizes the obvious that if there is a design in nature there must be a God. And this from an atheist! He assumes that if God is the conclusion of these men's scientific pursuit then it must be invalid science. How absurd is that?! Truth is disallowed if truth leads us to God.
Actually, I am inclined to agree with the article about Behe and Dembski. They are useful to me because they have made some wonderful arguments against Darwinism. But I too think it is clearly a copout to say that that their conclusion of the need for a designer need not be God. And their motive is obviously the desire avoid the label of a creationist so as to give their science credence within academic circles. But they fail to do that. They are excoriated by the mainstream scientific community anyway. The have fooled no one and they have been ashamed of God in the process. I understand what they are trying to do and I am glad they are honest scientists but they might as well go ahead and say the obvious.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."