Charles Fort was a kook, a crank, a horribly disorganized writer and far too credulous in data selection. In Charles' lifetime, science was already en route to ascendancy as a high priesthood; Hiroshima locked that in long after Fort's death.
Even a kook can be prescient about one thing, and so it was with Fort. He pointed out that 'Science' has a habit of throwing out data that doesn't fit dogma. Examples abound in Fort's several books. It does rain frogs now & then. Also rains fish, shrimp, walnuts and chickpeas (some kinda legume. What am I here, Julia Child or something?). There was in fact a documented fish rain in Australia early this year.
Fort's sneering thesis was since 'Science' wasn't able to explain these strange rains, the data was dismissed. Hundreds of eyewitness accounts were thrown out, because the witnesses were 'uneducated and superstitious.' Fort said, 'Nope, that's not why the data was tossed. It's because it didn't fit the dogma.'
Charles was right. In 2010 he's righter than ever.
So let's look at Charles Darwin dogma with a Charles Fort eye...
Indisputable that a panda isn't a bear. Its closest relative is the raccoon. So a panda is really a big fat bamboo munching Chinese raccoon. So both raccoons & pandas descend from a common, now extinct animal we'll call pandarac. Let's focus on the panda line.
According to Darwin, spontaneous mutations happen all the time in newborn individuals. Over eons, some are beneficial, like longer claws maybe. These enhance reproductive capacity, so they slowly become dominant traits. It keeps going like that, then one day you got an individual born that isn't a pandarac at all. It's a brand new species, a pre-panda. Brand new species; hence Darwin's title 'Origins of the Species.'
A species is a species because it has a distinct number of chromosones in all cells, including sex cells. That's why kangaroos and horses can't have babies together; each has diff number of chromosones, so at fertilization things wouldn't line up. Horses & kangaroos are two different species.
Let's get back to the pandarac. According to Darwin, spontaneous mutations went on and on with newborn individuals, and one day you get a brand new species, the pre-panda. There's just one thing? That newly minted spontaneous mutated new species individual? Who did it have babies with?
IF evolution is a primal self-sustaining force, laid complete in an instant by a perfect Creator, same as hurricanes or tectonic plate action? Then some complementary force not yet discovered exists, ensuring when a new species pops up, co-mutation has taken place among other newborn individuals.
IF evolution isn't God designed, looks to me like each new species would be a reproductive dead end.
Now see, what I just typed? That's real Science; as opposed to a bunch of witch doctor dogma. Real science is willing to keep questioning and seeking truth. I think my case for God designed evolution is air tight logic.
Anybody who'd argue against a Creator using their scraps of approved data? They look to me like a ten year old who's found a cake recipe, and runs through the house shouting "See? There is no Mom!"
Could be Scooter, you've found proof that there is a Mom...