|
| Re:
I
won't
take
a
part
in
that...
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
We should keep the religion of Evolution out of it, then. It takes faith to believe the unseen. There is about as much unseen in Evolution as there is in Creation.
|
Since when did scientists rely soly on eyesight to make observations? Does this mean that we shouldn't teach courses that involve quantum mechanics, gravity, or electromagnetism? Since we can only see the results gravity and electromagnetism, but not the forces themselves and quantum mechanics deals with particles way to small to be seen even with the strongest microscope. What about chemistry? I could make an argument that it takes faith to believe in things like protons, electrons and atomic bonds since we can't see those things directly, or at least my chemistry never bothered to show me the photographic evidence for them, just a lot of drawings.
The thing is that evolutionists rely on things that can be measured or observed directly, like radioactive decay or the fossil record, to draw their conclusions, while creationists rely on an unquantifiable (by definition) god to maker theirs. While it is possible to argue the flaws in evolutionary theory scientifically, it currently is the best, scientific theory that we have, since the only other explanations we have (that I know about) rely on "god" (Jews, Christians, Muslims) or love (Hindus and Budists, however their beliefs are more complex than just that) or some sort "spirit of creation" like a lot of native american tribes. And I'm know that I'm leaving a lot of other religious explanations out.
Intelligent design, from what little I know about it, is so vague, that it belongs in the realm of philosophy and religion, rather than science.
Jeremy
The blog...
"You are not your bank account!"
- Tyler, from Fight Club
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AUTHOR OF THIS MESSAGE
The Red i
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
01 october 2005, 13:14:13
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
66.24.57.142
|
|
|
|
