A few thoughts (I am a civil engineer by training and not a biologist):
1. I think it is accurate to say that evolution does not explain everything. Sy Garte often says the same, and I would encourage those reading to google Sy and check him out;
2. Darwin's contribution to modern evolutionary theory is the idea of natural selection. Modern evolutionary theory is much more than natural selection;
3. The role of chance in evolution is real and is important, but tends to be overstated by many, and grossly overstated by the militantly anti-evolutionary folks. Natural selection is extremely non-random. It's not chance;
4. Design is generally thought to be a souped-up version of human design. Few recognize that humans can only think in human categories. Therefore, we might miss "divine design" because it doesn't appear "designed." For an analogy, we often exclaim that no human would ever have designed the plan of salvation and it appeared foolish to both Jew and Greek. For more of my thoughts on this, https://godandnature.asa3.org/spaulding-god-as-designer.html
Thank you for the long nutrition pieces. Both were fascinating and deeply thought provoking. (I wouldn't really say they were in opposition to each other though.) I do wish the latter had spent a little more time addressing the physics/thermodynamics argument.
Mark, I was a little surprised to hear you give some credence to Darwinism. Of course there are minor variations that can appear in any species based on prolonged environmental changes, but there is no evidence at all of any "species to species" transformation. We obviously don't see anything of the sort happening today, and as far as "ancient history" is concerned, we have no fossil evidence of such "intermediates" either. Darwin as much as admitted this in his books, suggesting that perhaps future discoveries would support his view, which of course hasn't happened. If you have any interest in seeing a review of Darwin's works with a "point by point" rebuttal, you could look at my recent book, "Evolution Claptrap: Ancient and Modern," by Thomas F. Harkins, Jr., which can be ordered off Amazon and Barnes & Noble. I also critique Francis Collins' "The Language of God" in that same book.
I enjoyed the piece on Pettigrew. It reminded me of an undergraduate honors course thirty-seven years ago (has it been that long?!), where I stated my agnosticism re naturalistic evolution. While I expected some reaction to my "heresy" I wasn't prepared for the derision and vituperative comments. I then learned that pre-existing assumptions carry far more weight than the data. The "discussion" ended when I said, "I'm sorry, I wish I did, but I just don't have your degree of faith."
A few thoughts (I am a civil engineer by training and not a biologist):
1. I think it is accurate to say that evolution does not explain everything. Sy Garte often says the same, and I would encourage those reading to google Sy and check him out;
2. Darwin's contribution to modern evolutionary theory is the idea of natural selection. Modern evolutionary theory is much more than natural selection;
3. The role of chance in evolution is real and is important, but tends to be overstated by many, and grossly overstated by the militantly anti-evolutionary folks. Natural selection is extremely non-random. It's not chance;
4. Design is generally thought to be a souped-up version of human design. Few recognize that humans can only think in human categories. Therefore, we might miss "divine design" because it doesn't appear "designed." For an analogy, we often exclaim that no human would ever have designed the plan of salvation and it appeared foolish to both Jew and Greek. For more of my thoughts on this, https://godandnature.asa3.org/spaulding-god-as-designer.html
I don't know what proportion of scientists believe in evolution, but I was struck by this quote in a National Geographic story about fireflies that flash in sync with each other: "As to what the purpose of the synchrony is, “we ask ourselves that every day,” Peleg says." https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/synchronous-fireflies-rare-look-congaree-national-park?cmpid=org=ngp::mc=crm-email::src=ngp::cmp=editorial::add=Photography_20210918::rid=87A90CC3C200BEE1112566A536B5707C. If a scientist assumes a purpose, is he or she also assuming that someone created the purpose? Or if the purpose is "survival of the fittest," who decided THAT should be the purpose?
Thank you for the long nutrition pieces. Both were fascinating and deeply thought provoking. (I wouldn't really say they were in opposition to each other though.) I do wish the latter had spent a little more time addressing the physics/thermodynamics argument.
Mark, I was a little surprised to hear you give some credence to Darwinism. Of course there are minor variations that can appear in any species based on prolonged environmental changes, but there is no evidence at all of any "species to species" transformation. We obviously don't see anything of the sort happening today, and as far as "ancient history" is concerned, we have no fossil evidence of such "intermediates" either. Darwin as much as admitted this in his books, suggesting that perhaps future discoveries would support his view, which of course hasn't happened. If you have any interest in seeing a review of Darwin's works with a "point by point" rebuttal, you could look at my recent book, "Evolution Claptrap: Ancient and Modern," by Thomas F. Harkins, Jr., which can be ordered off Amazon and Barnes & Noble. I also critique Francis Collins' "The Language of God" in that same book.
I enjoyed the piece on Pettigrew. It reminded me of an undergraduate honors course thirty-seven years ago (has it been that long?!), where I stated my agnosticism re naturalistic evolution. While I expected some reaction to my "heresy" I wasn't prepared for the derision and vituperative comments. I then learned that pre-existing assumptions carry far more weight than the data. The "discussion" ended when I said, "I'm sorry, I wish I did, but I just don't have your degree of faith."