[jaydee]

Nutballs abound:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4521157.stm

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

Teach science in science class, and myth's in mythology class.
You would think that would be easy, no?

 

[Ridemonkey]

I'm so proud.

 

[kinghami3]

What idiots, it's like the Scopes trial all over again. Genesis is the story of God creating us, not a creation theory.

 

[Changleen]

I really can't understand how anyone could seriously entertain the idea of creationism. I can understand why you would persue it as part of an agenda, or as a method to control your population, but seriously - Unless you wanted to keep them dumb why would you teach your children that science is wrong? It's like there is some agenda to indoctrinate children to not question certain things. It's just retarded. Don't question religion. Don't question the state. Just do what we say and everything will be fine, and here's your new brown shirt.

 

[Andyman_1970]

The funny thing is, and fundamentalists miss this which is odd since it's in the Bible, the Bible teaches followers of Jesus to "test everything" and that all things are "ours" regardless of their authorship or if they have a "Christian" label on it, and that truth can be found anywhere - not just in church, or the Bible.

Anyway, I find it intertaining that these values are in the Bible and for Christians, yet rarely taught by fundamentalist - you should the faces of the college students I teach when I say stuff like that its like "no way, that's in the Bible?" - I love to teach people stuff from the Bible they've never heard of before the whole "light bulb" thing is totally cool.

Anyway, continue your bashing of Christians.......................

 

[Changleen]

Anyway, continue your bashing of Christians.......................

Thanks, will do. When are you gonna stop calling yourself a christian?

 

[kinghami3]

Thanks, will do. When are you gonna stop calling yourself a christian?

Why should he stop? I'm a Christian, hopefully on my way to being ordained, and I'm rarely having more fun then when I'm bashing Christian pop-culture or Christian fundamentalists (or modernists for that matter). All too often they try to dilute scripture with a bunch of non-fundamental garbage like the creation theory (or the evolution theory), call those ideas fundamental, and forget that what it's really about is a God who created us, loves us, and was willing to die for us.

 

[Changleen]

Why should he stop? I'm a Christian, hopefully on my way to being ordained, and I'm rarely having more fun then when I'm bashing Christian pop-culture or Christian fundamentalists (or modernists for that matter). All too often they try to dilute scripture with a bunch of non-fundamental garbage like the creation theory (or the evolution theory), call those ideas fundamental, and forget that what it's really about is a God who created us, loves us, and was willing to die for us.

God is dead? You heard it here first, folks.

Seriously, yes, that's a better idea. Call all those other idiots fundamentalists. Maybe they can be the next objective in the 'war' on 'terror'.

 

[kinghami3]

God is dead? You heard it here first, folks.

Seriously, yes, that's a better idea. Call all those other idiots fundamentalists. Maybe they can be the next objective in the 'war' on 'terror'.

:angry: ....and that he rose again. Honestly, I gotta cover all my bases or I'll get lit up. Don't get me started on the 'war on terror' either; I go to a school where Bush is considered a god and where all Democrats are going to Hell in flames because we're all communist homosexuals and we like to kill babies.

 

[Changleen]

:angry: ....and that he rose again. Honestly, I gotta cover all my bases or I'll get lit up. Don't get me started on the 'war on terror' either; I go to a school where Bush is considered a god and where all Democrats are going to Hell in flames because we're all communist homosexuals and we like to kill babies.

In Seattle? Wow, that sucks.

 

[kinghami3]

In Seattle? Wow, that sucks.

Yeah, but I have my fun messing with the pastor's kids

 

[Changleen]

Yeah, but I have my fun messing with the pastor's kids

Eewwww.

 

[Duffle]

What keeps Atheism from being a religion? Or Naturalism, Nihilism, or any other non-theistic view from being such? No one seems to mind any of them.

We can't physically see atoms. They're just too small. However, we teach that they exist in schools. I'm not saying that atoms don't exist (I'm pretty darn sure they do), but pointing out that we do teach things we can't physically see. We don't have the same kind of evidence to prove the existance of a Creator, i.e. examples that are fairly easy to demonstrate to nearly anyone, by scientific means.

The theory of evolution is just that: a theory. It's a theory just like Creationism, Buddhism, or Naturalism. In my mind, none of them can be proven in the same way we prove that 2+2=4, but I still think one is right (you can take a guess at what that one is).

I'm 100% teaching evolution in schools. I just want it to be taught as what it is, a theory, not an overplayed answer to the question of everything (which we all know is 42 anyway ;-)).

D.

 

[kinghami3]

What keeps Atheism from being a religion? Or Naturalism, Nihilism, or any other non-theistic view from being such? No one seems to mind any of them.

We can't physically see atoms. They're just too small. However, we teach that they exist in schools. I'm not saying that atoms don't exist (I'm pretty darn sure they do), but pointing out that we do teach things we can't physically see. We don't have the same kind of evidence to prove the existance of a Creator, i.e. examples that are fairly easy to demonstrate to nearly anyone, by scientific means.

The theory of evolution is just that: a theory. It's a theory just like Creationism, Buddhism, or Naturalism. In my mind, none of them can be proven in the same way we prove that 2+2=4, but I still think one is right (you can take a guess at what that one is).

I'm 100% teaching evolution in schools. I just want it to be taught as what it is, a theory, not an overplayed answer to the question of everything (which we all know is 42 anyway ;-)).

D.

Atheism isn't a religion because they don't believe in anything, but I think it takes more faith to be an atheist than to have religion and believe in a god who is looking after you. You're right that they're all just theories, but the creation theory as we know it didn't exist until the 1960s and is based on BS geology and really has no backing, even as far as the original Biblical texts are concerned ("days" in Hebrew meant "periods of time" and were undistinguished). However, until one is proven, they are both just as valid as the other.

Eewwww.

Get your mind out of the gutter

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

What keeps Atheism from being a religion? Or Naturalism, Nihilism, or any other non-theistic view from being such? No one seems to mind any of them.

the lack of faith, isnt a faith per se.

We can't physically see atoms. They're just too small. However, we teach that they exist in schools. I'm not saying that atoms don't exist (I'm pretty darn sure they do), but pointing out that we do teach things we can't physically see. We don't have the same kind of evidence to prove the existance of a Creator, i.e. examples that are fairly easy to demonstrate to nearly anyone, by scientific means.

we can test and somewhat validate our current and young understanding of atoms.. view is not the only sense, and scientifical facts are not limited to one sense...

The theory of evolution is just that: a theory. It's a theory just like Creationism, Buddhism, or Naturalism. In my mind, none of them can be proven in the same way we prove that 2+2=4, but I still think one is right (you can take a guess at what that one is).

no way you can put creationism and evolution in the same sack just by stating "they are just a theory"... if both were cyclist, one would be a gold medalist and the other N8.... equating both by saying "both are just cyclist" doesnt portrait correctly our understanding of the world...
since absolute proofs dont exist.. what we got are "% of certainty".. a "scientific theory according to the scientific method" has a much much higher % of certainty than fundamentalist creationism, or the aztec story about the world on the back of turtles

I'm 100% teaching evolution in schools. I just want it to be taught as what it is, a theory, not an overplayed answer to the question of everything (which we all know is 42 anyway ;-)).
D.

good... but you just have to accept that stating "is just a theory, like creationism" does not make justice for neither of them...
like it would make no justice to say "lance is a cyclist, just and no more or better than N8"....

 

[Duffle]

Atheism isn't not believing in God. It's not believing in God. It manifests itself in various ways, sometimes in Nihilism, which is believing in nothing.

However, believing in no different than believing in someting in my opinion. It's all a matter of your worldview.

Creationism existed long before the 1960s. Read anything by Aquinas or Luther and you'll probably see that Christianity's core doctrine is the same.

However, until one is proven, they are both just as valid as the other.

You know, schrodinger's cat would be dead by now. Neither is exactly proveable. Just like atoms, we can't go around saying the continuious theory of matter is just as valid as the discontinious (atoms vs. non-atoms, roughly) just because we can't prove one. We can get strong evidence for one, to be sure. But I feel I have strong evidence for what I believe, just like you probably do about what you believe.


D.

It's so nice to see people who can argue civilly :-D

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Atheism isn't not believing in God. It's not believing in God. It manifests itself in various ways, sometimes in Nihilism, which is believing in nothing.
However, believing in no different than believing in someting in my opinion. It's all a matter of your worldview.

wait.. i got more a dialectic thing here... "Atheism isn't not believing in God. It's not believing in God" am kinda trying to interpretate this in every way i can but i just dont seem to see a difference... better wording (or better english understanding for me) would help...
"belief in nothing" is not the same as a belief in something... "belief in nothing" actually is "lack of belief"... technically you cannot "belief in nothing".

Creationism existed long before the 1960s. Read anything by Aquinas or Luther and you'll probably see that Christianity's core doctrine is the same.

aquinas arguments are pretty lame.. am not that much familiar with luther, but i think he is more of a protestant thing, rather than a christian thing, so his thought are not "christianys core doctrine" but "protestantism core doctrine"..

You know, schrodinger's cat would be dead by now. Neither is exactly proveable. Just like atoms, we can't go around saying the continuious theory of matter is just as valid as the discontinious (atoms vs. non-atoms, roughly) just because we can't prove one. We can get strong evidence for one, to be sure. But I feel I have strong evidence for what I believe, just like you probably do about what you believe.
D.

It's so nice to see people who can argue civilly :-D

proofs in the absolute way you require to accept a theory as a fact DO NOT EXIST outside logic and math...
karl popper has some good points in his definition of what can be accounted as an acceptable theory and what not.
"the strong evidence for what you believe" does not constitute enough grounds to support your reasoning or perspeption.
for example, an schizophrenic finds "strong evidence for what he believes within himself" (and probably stronger than you) in stuff that you wouldnt accept as likely...
as you see "strong evidence from within" is not a trustable source to portrait reality or to explain things.
perseption and reality are separate things, and not necesarily always compatible.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

But I feel I have strong evidence for what I believe, just like you probably do about what you believe.

And that is exactly why science is such an important means of communication. Demonstratable and reproducable results goes a long way in an argument, much farther than .. I feel. Faith, by it's very nature, is unprovable. It has little value outside of our own person in terms of relating to the physical world. Shouldn't schools be limited to teaching the tangible? At least in science class?

Creationism is not a theory, it's a story. Every culture has Creation stories.
Evolution is a theory. It is "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another". The latter is science, the former is not.

Atoms? Ugghhh, I hate this argument . Apples to oranges. Yes, our understanding of quantum mechanics is young, and like most science - will change as our understanding and tools increase. But at least it's an attempt at relationships. ... And we can see them. We can even smash them.

I would agree that atheism is also a form of faith as there is as much evidence for as against ... nada. Agnostics, on the other hand ...

What I can never figure out is why people need something to worship. Even if there is a God ... a creator ... a whatever, why would you bow, kneel, pray, spend you life in servitude to it? The odds are high that there is indeed higher inteligencia than what we got on this blue marble, but why make a religion out of it?

 

[kinghami3]

Creationism existed long before the 1960s. Read anything by Aquinas or Luther and you'll probably see that Christianity's core doctrine is the same.

I'm talking about the hardcore fundamentalist version of creationism that we see today. In the time of the Scopes trial a much more scientifically reasonable version of creationism was the common belief. Actually I'm going to have to recheck my notes on this, but it came about sometime in the 20th century. Now I'm just second guessing myself. Crap.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

What I can never figure out is why people need something to worship. Even if there is a God ... a creator ... a whatever, why would you bow, kneel, pray, spend you life in servitude to it? The odds are high that there is indeed higher inteligencia than what we got on this blue marble, but why make a religion out of it?

i asked that very same question to a rabbi, and he answered me in a very logical and satisfying (at least for me) way..

his most realistic view of worshipping is that is a way to demostrate to others your caring about a common belief, which may be god, or may be an ethical system or a system of actions or whatever...
just like when you sing the anthem or saludate the flag... not that you are necesarilly thinking the flag itself has some intrinsec virtue or need that has to be satisfied, but is a way of bonding and demostration to others who share similar feelings towards what it represents..

 

[Andyman_1970]

When are you gonna stop calling yourself a christian?

Technically I prefer "follower of Jesus" rather than Christian as that tends to be more discriptive of who I am. But as for when am I going to stop calling myself a Christian/follower of Jesus............that would be never.

Curious, why did you ask that?

 

[Duffle]

Sorry about the bad grammer...too late at night.

What I meant was that Atheism isn't believing in nothing. It's not believing in God.

Creationism is not a theory, it's a story. Every culture has Creation stories.

Creationism explains things by the % of chance method earlier (inductive logic). Darwin's evolution is poorly formed and quite bluntly, unproven. Where is our missing link? There are so many tremendous gaps in the fossil record. Also, mutations just don't occur in that way very well at all. Nearly all mutations have a negative side effect. It's simply how they work. However, Creationism explains this all relativly well in a neat little bundle of God did it goodness.

Faith, I agree, is not something you can prove in this day and age (I'll refrain from mentioning atoms again ;-), we can't see the atoms directly, only indirectly). But, philisophically, many people think that I can't prove I exist (I'm prettty happy with cogito ergo sum). If you don't know you exist, it's pretty darn hard to prove evolution and all that comes with it.


D.

btw, protestant is a branch of Christianity. Catholicisism is also a branch of Christianity. And aquinas arguments aren't particularly good, they can't prove the existance of a Christian god. They do reasonably well proving aristotle's unmoved mover.

 

[kinghami3]

Technically I prefer "follower of Jesus" rather than Christian as that tends to be more discriptive of who I am.

I tried that for a while, but it didn't work for me and I had to realize that I was a Christian, whether or not I was associated myself with a bunch of raving lunatics, hardcore fundamentalists, or a bunch of unbelieving unitarians, or even myself. "Christian" means "follower of Christ," but it's gotten such a bad rap that I don't blame you.

 

[Silver]

Creationism explains things by the % of chance method earlier (inductive logic). Darwin's evolution is poorly formed and quite bluntly, unproven. Where is our missing link? There are so many tremendous gaps in the fossil record. Also, mutations just don't occur in that way very well at all. Nearly all mutations have a negative side effect. It's simply how they work. However, Creationism explains this all relativly well in a neat little bundle of God did it goodness.

Your understanding of evolutionary theory is...um...not good.

Saying "God did it" doesn't explain anything, by the way. I can say that Thor did it and it makes the same argument. That doesn't make it correct.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I tried that for a while, but it didn't work for me and I had to realize that I was a Christian, whether or not I was associated myself with a bunch of raving lunatics, hardcore fundamentalists, or a bunch of unbelieving unitarians, or even myself. "Christian" means "follower of Christ," but it's gotten suck a bad rap that I don't blame you.

For me the word "Christian" these days in the United States is so generic it (for me) doesn't capture what it really means to live out what it means to follow Jesus.

There was a poll taken about a month ago where people were asked "what does it mean to be a Christian" (this poll was taken in the US) - and the overwhelming majority of the answers were "hates gays". I was like "what?!?!" - I don't think I have to go out on much of a limb here to say I don't think that is what Jesus intended, that one day His followers would be known for hating a group of people.

This seems to be a problem we have here in the US, in that the word Christian is thrown around rather loosely divorced from it's Biblcally holistic meaning - so I personally chose something a bit more descriptive of how I live my life.

Oh and BTW, the word "Christian" in the Bible is a noun, not an adjective used to label things "safe" so that Christians can uncritically consume them(books, music, movies, etc).

 

[fluff]

Your understanding of evolutionary theory is...um...not good.

I see people here saying that a lot but not backing it up with anything more substantial than the arguments of the creationists. If you want it to be viewed as more than faith you need to provide some backing arguments.

I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in creation, however evolution looks like a pretty flaky alternative (yet I can see no others) that flies only because nothing else flies better - not the best reason to believe in it.

And before anyone mentions intelligent design I'd like to hear how that differs from generic creationism (as opposed to the Genesis story).

 

[Silver]

I see people here saying that a lot but not backing it up with anything more substantial than the arguments of the creationists. If you want it to be viewed as more than faith you need to provide some backing arguments.

I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in creation, however evolution looks like a pretty flaky alternative (yet I can see no others) that flies only because nothing else flies better - not the best reason to believe in it.

And before anyone mentions intelligent design I'd like to hear how that differs from generic creationism (as opposed to the Genesis story).

Intelligent Design (as it exits in the US) is not much more than a smokescreen to get creationism into science class. Outside of the US, it refers to the idea that something was involved in the design of life. An interesting idea, but once again it doesn't say anything different than saying "Thor created it" says.

Possible? Yes. Then again, so is the theory that there is a china teapot in elliptical orbit around the sun.

A decent place to start would be here, if you're interested in evolutionary theory:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393315703/qid=1115666503/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl14/103-9030789-5677435?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[Duffle]

Intelligent Design is just another name for Creationism...design by an intelligent being. It's a little more generic, as it does not imply Christianity, although it's usually used in that context.

Evolution has a whole heck of a lot of problems to overcome before it's as valid (meanin possible, not true) as many other scientific theorys. How on earth do some of these things evolve? I have yet to hear a sound argument about irreducible complexity (nanomachines that will cease to function completely if one component is removed).

I'm not claiming that saying "God did it" proves anything. Merely pointing out that saying God did it is a fairly good summary of Creationism, and I feel that it doesn't contradict itself. That alone doesn't make it true, persay, strictly valid.

D.

 

[Ridemonkey]

I see people here saying that a lot but not backing it up with anything more substantial than the arguments of the creationists. If you want it to be viewed as more than faith you need to provide some backing arguments.

Why bother? Darwin himself wouldn't change the mind of a "believer".

I think Puff the Magic Dragon made people. In fact, I am sure of it.

 

[Skookum]

Why bother? Darwin himself wouldn't change the mind of a "believer".

I think Puff the Magic Dragon made people. In fact, I am sure of it.

i used to have a dragon bong back in the day.....

 

[Changleen]

Technically I prefer "follower of Jesus" rather than Christian as that tends to be more discriptive of who I am. But as for when am I going to stop calling myself a Christian/follower of Jesus............that would be never.

Curious, why did you ask that?

Because you're inevitably being lumped in with a bunch of idiots (a really big bunch) who you don't have much in common with, and, in my opinion, are way stupider than you. I guess you have equal rights to the name though, so it's up to you.

 

[Changleen]

Creationism is not a theory, it's a story. Every culture has Creation stories.
Evolution is a theory. It is "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another". The latter is science, the former is not.

Yes, This is pretty much the difference. I think there are many people who don't properly understand what actually constitutes a theory. Here's a nice bit of text I found:

Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Because you're inevitably being lumped in with a bunch of idiots (a really big bunch) who you don't have much in common with, and, in my opinion, are way stupider than you. I guess you have equal rights to the name though, so it's up to you.

Wow Chang, I'll take that as a compliment............thanks.

 

[arboc!]

Intelligent Design is just another name for Creationism...design by an intelligent being. It's a little more generic, as it does not imply Christianity, although it's usually used in that context.

Evolution has a whole heck of a lot of problems to overcome before it's as valid (meanin possible, not true) as many other scientific theorys. How on earth do some of these things evolve? I have yet to hear a sound argument about irreducible complexity (nanomachines that will cease to function completely if one component is removed).

I'm not claiming that saying "God did it" proves anything. Merely pointing out that saying God did it is a fairly good summary of Creationism, and I feel that it doesn't contradict itself. That alone doesn't make it true, persay, strictly valid.

D.

noah, you use too many big words

 

[Silver]

Evolution has a whole heck of a lot of problems to overcome before it's as valid (meanin possible, not true) as many other scientific theorys. How on earth do some of these things evolve? I have yet to hear a sound argument about irreducible complexity (nanomachines that will cease to function completely if one component is removed).

No, it doesn't. It's a much more robust theory than you make it out to be. Once again, you don't appear to have much, if any, understanding of evolutionary theory.

 

[Changleen]

Yeah, There's a reason why 'Origin of the Species' is quite a long book.

 

[Changleen]

Another good article:

The Short Proof of Evolution
by
Ian Johnston
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

 

[Duffle]

If I have such a poor understanding, what am I leaving out? Not in a defensive way, btw, just as a question.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.

How odd...I didn't know I refused to let scientists examine my theorys ;-). I usually view it as the other way around, Scientists saying, "Eeek, they mentioned God, it must be unscientific". Oddly enough there are some rather prominent scientists that believe in a god. There just recently(ish) was a renouned atheist phiosopher Even Stephen Hawking says that God could exist.

 

[Toshi]

want proof that natural selection occurs and that significant traits spontaneously crop up (and are then spread wholesale as units such as transposons)? just look at the emergence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria...

and Duffle, Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physicist. his views on the possible existence of a god have NO bearing on a discussion of evolution.