Ok, I lied. You can't prove the non-existence of something.
My main complaint these days about Christianity is Intelligent Design (aka Creationism). I've wondered for a long time, why couldn't God have used evolution to create Man? Why would God have left evidence of evolution in the ground? Just to confuse us? Why would God have made it appear to us that the earth and universe are much older than what is in the Bible? Oh ya, we don't know Gods plan. Good answer ;-)
Evolution is not a theory. Wow, this guy nailed it (clipped from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html):
I should remember - don't talk about politics or religion (or abortion (aka justifiable homicide) which is both at the same time for some people). Obama in 2008!
My main complaint these days about Christianity is Intelligent Design (aka Creationism). I've wondered for a long time, why couldn't God have used evolution to create Man? Why would God have left evidence of evolution in the ground? Just to confuse us? Why would God have made it appear to us that the earth and universe are much older than what is in the Bible? Oh ya, we don't know Gods plan. Good answer ;-)
Evolution is not a theory. Wow, this guy nailed it (clipped from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html):
Let me try to make crystal clear what is establishedbeyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
The attempt to get religion taught in public schools has forced me to become a Pastafarian (www.venganza.org).- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
I should remember - don't talk about politics or religion (or abortion (aka justifiable homicide) which is both at the same time for some people). Obama in 2008!
Posts
1 comment:
I don't understand the argument here. First ID and Evolution are by definition theories. The difference between the two is Evolution has a tremendous body of evidence the shows how animals with skeletons have evolved over the years. But offers no evidence on how self replicating molecules came into existence and how those managed to form something as complex as DNA and RNA and then how that became a single cell. It also has no evidence on how single cell life become or evolved into life forms with skeletons. The reason for this is skeletons leave behind evidence after thousands or millions of years and the single cell animals do not.
ID does not say evolution is wrong, what they say is Evolution is not a process that happened by accident. They do think evolution as the form with which life happened is real and clearly supported by the evidence. ID attempts to present where did the process of evolution come from.
Here is a description of ID:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis1.htm
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
I would agree that ID should not be taught in schools but I don't oppose any scientist who wants to explore it as a possible theory and allow them to prove it through the scientific process. If it ever acheives enough evidence to justify it to the validity as the theory of evolution or Einstiens theory of General or special relativity, then I think it should be taught in school.
I do believe ID and Evolution is a theory, the difference is one has a huge body of evidence and the other has none.
Post a Comment