Faith Well Grounded

At its core, it is nothing more than verbal slight-of-hand and an ingenious sophistry.

I suppose I should be flattered, but I don't see where the deception that you're implying comes in.

Now we are talking quantity. And there is the sophistry and switch. Make up your mind what we are talking about, direction or quantity?

We're talking about quantity of time and LACK of direction. Some people (creationists and evolutionists) think that man is the epitome of living things, the pinnacle of creation/evolution (whichever they choose).

That's just not so. Man is pretty weak. We're not the fastest, nor the strongest, nor the biggest... We are, however, the smartest, and that gives us an advantage that helps us overcome other weak points.

Due to common descent, every creature alive today can claim the same amount of evolutionary time leading up to them. Sometimes simplicity wins out (single-celled organisms are very efficient). Sometimes complexity works best (large animals can take advantage of larger food sources).

No matter how far I travel, I am still traveling in a direction.

But the directions you cite are predetermined, and your travel is directed towards a compass point as a goal. Evolution has no predetermined goal, just survival. That can take a population in many directions, depending on the conditions.

Now, Darwinism's entire premise is to explain the variety we see in living organisms. At its root, its major goal is to explain the process by which life evolved from simple life to complex life. If there is no direction in Darwinism, then please pray tell what its goal is seeking to explain.

I think you're confusing the goal of the theory (to explain the evidence we see) with a hypothetical goal of the process (nothing). One of the facts that must be explained by the theory is why we see complexity increase in many cases. It must also explain why we still see simplicity in nature as well.

I find it sad that a theory has to deny its goal to protect its foundations.

No denial here. It is what it is. Where it's headed, who knows?

It's late and I'm my mind's not fully engaged, but one problem I have with evolution's admitted lack of directionality, is that things certainly don't seem to be just scattershot projects going who knows where. Things seem to work together with a phenomenal amount of harmony. Of course, I suppose the naturalist's answer is that that's the order imposed on random genetic mutation by natural selection and the environment, which is a good answer as far as it goes.

The main problem for me remains the dearth of evidence for macro-evolution that doesn't presuppose what Plantinga calls the "Grand Evolutionary Myth." To my knowledge there has been no success whatsoever in demonstrating this supposedly fundamental and pervasive concept nor is gradualism evident in the fossil record (it wasn't creationists that coined the phrase "Cambrian explosion"). I'll be unconvinced by the Grand Evolutionary Myth until there's good reason not to be.

P.S.: I think the math questions should be harder.