‘Mr Darwin, could you please explain to us ..err.. laymen. How it is that your theories of evolution via natural selection explain the existence of the angler fish?’

‘Err yes, the angler fish… ‘Fishyorum Fishinrodum’.
Now, as we all know that evolution is driven by the survival of the fittest, or as I have coined the term, ‘Natural Selection’. We see that in an environment where grubs, a food source for birds, are hiding under tree bark. It then comes to pass that the long beaked birds fair better than their short beaked rivals. This, as they can retrieve the grubs and prosper. The longer the beak the better equipped the bird, and so through selective survival and subsequent breading of successful candidates, the bird develops a longer beak. Although this theory does suggest that white men should have died out in the face of competition of black men but then I digress,,,,’

‘I understand the principle Mr Darwin, but I am asking you to explain how the angler fish evolved in the way it did?’

‘Indeed! Well the origin of that species was called the big nose fish. The fish did originally have fairly big noses you see. And they also had various excretions exuding from the nose, the layman’s term is the ‘bogie’ or ‘booger’ I believe. Now, smaller fish would mistake these bogies for tasty morsels, you know in the same way the children do! And of course the angler fish snapped the smaller fish up as they came close to the mouth, which is situated under the nose. Thus the fishes with the biggest noses and most succulent bogies survived where as the flat face or ‘boxer fish’ died out. Of course now the angler fish’s nose has ‘evolved’ into something that resembles a fishing rod and worm. I suggest that after a few more million years it may well add a reel and line with clutch, and the fish will also develop a tendency to exaggerate as to the size of it’s lunch.’

‘You see I have a problem Mr Darwin. It seems to me, a layman, that the fish has adapted in a way that can’t be accounted for by your theory. And as fish aren’t known for their intelligence it seems that evolution has given the fish a slight nudge. And it also seems to me that ‘evolution’ has itself a capability for adaption over and above the species it affects.’

‘Are you talking about God good sir?’

‘Call it what you will, but I am saying that there seems to be intelligence behind nature, and I’m simply pointing out that your theories although looking feasible on first sight, cannot explain the development of numerous species, the stick insect family immediately springs to mind.’

‘My God Sir! You sound like my wife, but she has an excuse being a woman in that her brain is smaller as evolution did not require women to be intelligent only attractive..’

‘Aha, another flaw in your theory! Have you seen my wife?!?’

I can agree with much you have said here. I have recently found myself writing on evolution and associated topics, but with a slightly different tack and a slightly more humble a tone (I hope). I invite you to read at http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz the article I wrote called “Argument from Evolution.” I also recommend the recent podcasts on the “Doctrine of Creation” at http://www.reasonablefaith.org where Dr. William Lane Craig surveys the different interpretations of the Genesis creation account, and then looks at the merits of each. I found these very interesting and worthwhile.

And “thousands of working biologists” couldn’t be wrong… If these “working biologists” are so confident that evolution is true, then why are they so afraid to debate it? (And why so touchy for that matter?) I will continue to call Darwinism by its name. You and your thousands of working biologists can cry about it.