In response to Matt’s comments, let me say that I am actually well-educated and know a few things about science, having studied meteorology, geology, paleontology, chemistry, physics, biology, anthropology, and the environment since back in the 70’s. I have been a student or disciple in Christianity since the 60’s.
One problem with his response is that it ignores scientific process. Imagine a drug company that says they have a scientific theory that a drug may cure an illness, and goes to the FDA with that argument, seeking approval to market the drug. The FDA would laugh them out of Washington and question their sanity.
Scientific process moves hypothesis to theory to law. Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein understood this and wrote theories first and if possible to prove, then a law. And what was not provable remains theory until or unless it can be proven. The law of gravity and the theory of relativity are two good examples that all can somewhat relate to.
So, scientific process involves the following seven steps:
This is basic stuff that high school students learn! Step 5 is perhaps the most important one here because while scientists and amateurs can move through steps 1-4 quite easily, step 5 is a problem. You see, step 5 calls for a procedure by which you will carry out a controlled experiment to prove the hypothesis. With that controlled experiment completed, you can capture and analyze results (Step 6) and publish a conclusion (Step 7).
While his point on scientific theories goes without disagreement, the result there is something that is unproven—conjecture—and lacks concrete evidence. This is why the theory of evolution is just that. There are missing pieces and no-one understands how or why the supposed evolutions occurred. There is no fossil record to support the obviously required in-between stages.
I cannot argue adaptation, but to suppose that some pond ooze became electrically charged, clumped together, and developed over millennia into a greatly improved, complex mass of engineering and chemical processes that we have today is ludicrous.
Some use the idea of a nuclear explosion over a junk yard producing and fully functional 747 in its aftermath as the rough equivalent of this theory.
But here is where science contradicts itself. The second law of thermodynamics…
Well, I’ll assume it is a law that applies universally since it is referred to as a law. Therfore it must apply here as well.
…would indicate that unless that ooze was continually acted on by an external force, it would tend to fall into a state of entropy and disorder. It could not of its own accord become a more complex and different organism with specialized systems and processes.
Again, even if such WERE possible, where are the mid-stage forms of ANY organism that shows an evolutionary (not adaptive) change? They have not been found.