I have mentioned this blog site before. "The ID Update". I continue to recommend it to you as the best blog I have found summarizing all the news and articles being written about ID. Obviously, it is on the ID side but they do publish things that are NOT terribly supportive of ID. This article of an interview with Dr.Ronald Numbers is an example. Good article about the history of Creationists. Numbers is not an ID'er but he acknowledges that ID and Creationists have very little in common. Having read stuff from both groups I would agree.
However, the article that I want to call your attention to is this one. "It Takes Two to Tango and Three to Make a Race". It deals very well with the issue of the evolution of not just a human species, but the obvious need that humans had to evolve with fully working parts to be MALE and FEMALE humans. Mind boggling the chances that random events, natural selection, mutations would happen to develop either a male or a female human. But imagine the probability that both male and female would happen to develop at exactly the same time, exactly the needed time in order to propagate and continue the race. Wikipedia states, "The evolution of sex is a major puzzle in modern evolutionary biology."
This is a great read.
I also want to state something that my son Patrick pointed out in a comment. It seems discussions break down around the meaning of the word "evolution." I don't think anyone, certainly not us, would even begin to argue that micro-evolution is not scientifically valid and has been validated, observed and proved. It is the jump from Micro to Macro where the issues arise. It is where massive unprovable assumptions get made by the Darwinist's it seems. If a animal developed the ability to change colors so it could camouflage itself, then clearly the world we see evolved from nothing, to this amazing, highly intricate, complex Universe. If a=b and b probably =c, then a=c.
Macro-evolution by it's very nature, is not something that has been or can be observed. Thus it is resistant to observed, experiential science; something that can be reproduced. That opens Macro evolution to something that can only be speculated upon based on what we can observe and theorize. It should come as no surprise that multiple views of this would develop. For one group of observers to call the other group crazy and stupid non scientists is not fair to the fact that everyone is speculating on something that they were not around to observe happen. It leaves room for wide differences of interpretation of the data we see. It is simply my and others opinion that the data/structures we see appear to be highly designed and not the product of some random set of events.
