Reply #139: Evolutionary destiny.

[Code_Name_D]

The argument being presented here is a concept called "evolutionary destiny." It's an "assumption" made by scientists who have had there logic colored by religion. The argument is that life evolves on earth to produce us, humans, the "culmination of evolution." We have all see the "evolutionary ladder" that has plankton at the bottom, then invertebrates, fish, lizards, dinosaurs, mammals, birds, and then Lenordo Dvichie's "angel" pose man. (The one where he is looking up with his arms held strait out like a cross.)

And it was a concept that we held until recently. Until some collage student wrote an interim paper about the subject, pointing out some inconstancies in the assumption. By asking some pointed questions. 1) if man is the "culmination of evolution" than why are there so many other branches? Birds for example. 2) Is man really the most advanced life form? After all, birds can fly, isn't that more advanced? 3) Why are lizards still around? Why did other primates evolve separately from humans? 4) Why did mammals return to the sea? 5) Why dose man become pray to larger cats, wolf packs, alligators, or polar bears?

Every now and then, some simple thought changes our perceptions of evolution. But hardly ever in a way creationists might appreciate. And here is a case in point. Man is no longer treaded as the most advanced animal. We are just another animal with different traits. Unfortunately, high school caricula is ridiculously slow to change. I remember having this very same discussion with a high school teacher science teacher while working as a part time janitor. (He was rather incensed that I would challenge him on this.) But the next week, he came back and thanked me for pointing it out. Not only did he find out that I was correct, but it became an ideal learning opportunity for the class.

Science is not a perfict disapline, only a self corecting one.