People are not supposed to notice the design. To note it is to note something that cannot be measured, and is therefore anathema.
It is interesting. Centuries ago science was about reality and scientists would struggle to find ways to measure it.
Now science says reality is only what can be measured.
Centuries ago, most scientists were open to all possibilities. Since then, science has placed certain limits on itself. Experiments have been performed, for example, by attaching a monitor to a nun who was about to pray. Certain changes in her mental state were observed during prayer, but changes in mental state can occur for a variety of non-religious reasons. This was tried on others who I would describe as belonging to other belief systems and similar changes were observed. It didn’t prove anything.
There has been an attempt to create a field of study called “evolutionary psychology” but it has been met with skepticism on the part of the scientific community for good reason. All alleged ancestors are long dead.
For Catholics, the whole answer does not lie in science. Only the Church, through Divine Revelation, has the fullness of who and what man is. All it takes is a book by Richard Dawkins called the God Delusion. How he can rail against a being that he places on the very low end of the probability scale as actually existing is a good example of preaching anti-theism to the people. And scientists don’t realize the confusion he’s causing? No wonder some people reject evolution, because there are other scientists like Mr. Dawkins making dogmatic statements against God.
That is the issue here. Science can only solve problems about human origins going from a set of assumptions that assume everyone got here through blind, unguided chance. Many people also don’t read science journals.
“To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations”. “In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years.” Evolutionists had identified “more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome”, and they expected that “diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps.” So what did they find? “In contrast to expectation,” their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a “paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings”. Sweeps “were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity.” “Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years.” --Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.
“A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. They wrote that “forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations”. “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.” “The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments.” --Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.”
Peace,
Ed
