E-mail containing requested information to a new home schooling collegue of mine after one long and one short conversation about evolution. For a guy who home schools his kids do in large part to opposition to evolution, it's pretty impressive how rationally he can discuss it. But then again he is a good Chem E.

John,

Here are some links related to what we discussed last night.

A skeptical review of some of the key intelligent design arguments starting at the ireducible complexity arguement:
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050923_ID_science.html

Irreducible complexity and the eye:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/halfaneye.htm

The site below sounds a litle bit amatuerish to me but contains a lot of links to different famous "missing links" http://www.geocities.com/lflank/

I'd sum up irreducible complexity as a rational arguement against evolution because it uses a seemingly reasonable arguement to cast doubt on it, but an unscientific one because any example of irreducible complexity is an assumption not a fact and assumptions don't prove anything. I think the link above demonstrates there is good reason to doubt commonly used examples of such really are. The fossil record is full of examples of intermediate evolution yet no species has a record of fossil ancestors available to sample at selectable random time intervals to test evolution. We have to make do with the the geological evidence available to us. The random sampling comes from the rare and infrequent instances of fossilization events in nature itself beyond our control. The closest thing we have to controlled testing of evolutionary theory is genetic testing which so far has backed up the vast majority of conclusions drawn from infrequent fossils.

One thing I only recently became aware of is that one of the pillars of Darwin's theory is the patterns of diversity in modern life and that specimens from his time were more than just a galopagos based inspiration. My own interest has been primarily in the fossil evidence. As a result I can't provide you with much detail, but it is a side worth considering if you are highly skeptical of the accuracy of the fossil record.

I'd also have to state that scientists who say science isn't anti-religion are in two ways very wrong. Their methods and uses are almost polar opposites. Science is based on skepticism, testing and repeatable data with methods to minimize the impact of human bias and feelings; while religion is based on frequently untestable history, faith, and feelings. Science seeks to understand the physical world and religion the spiritual. I hate to argue against religion except in it opposition to evolution because it is a great source of comfort and moral guidance for many. Science has little to nothing to offer in the way of spiritual comfort and lttle to offer on morality unless you consider psychology a true science and even it is far more vague. They are anti in the opposite/complimentary sense like yin and yang or protons and antiprotons [and almost as volatile when mixed ;)]. Religion has provided much mental comfort to humanity while science has provided much physical comfort. My own opinion is that religion should not attempt to interject itself into science and that science should ignore religion.

Regards,
Mark