I think that Hillary Clinton summed it up best. “At this point, what difference does it make?”
Good Hunting… from Varmint Al
Posted on 08/12/2014 8:09:40 PM PDT by JimSEA
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...
Who disproved piltdown man, scientists perhaps? It was a hoax. The others, I have no idea as they don’t reference anything.
You can be a very good Christian and believe in Evolution.
You can be a great scientist and believe in intelligent design.
God has a sense of humor and he is laughing at all of us. Nobody knows exactly what happened.
Isa 57:15 For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite.
Inhabiting eternity indicates being outside our time domain, outside of our past, present and future. Similar to a programer of a computer universe who is outside the program and dictates the physics, time flow and organization of what is real within the program.
You could have answered the question instead. What’s scientific about said theory? You don’t start with a conclusion and seek observations that might fit it, since it prejudices how you perceive the observation; that is unscientific at its core. Never mind the lack of observation of phenomena related to the conclusion. Cart before the horse.
Contrast atomic theory. Observation is that all substances reduce to increasingly-smaller size of particles; hypothesis is that there is an endpoint for matter to be divided in said fashion. That theory was started from the right end.
>>Put your faith in a theory (because it is faith to believe in a theory(an idea without proof)) or God....I Chose God!<<
You really don’t know what a Scientific Theory is, do you? Hint: It isn’t a “guess all grown up.”
The ignorance on FR is quite vexing so much of the time.
Evolution doesn’t point toward perfectibility, only survival. Perfection is normative and in the provence of values. That’s theology, not science.
That’s not an answer.
I checked. That's actually the title of the article.
I have read much of the debate between Einstein and Bohr about quantum mechanics. The two were on completely different sides of the argument.
But never once did Einstein publish a paper entitled "Stupid Bohr has got it all wrong." And never once did Bohr publish a paper entitled "Einstein's thinking is idiotic."
But that was back when scientific debate was encouraged. Scientific American has forfeited its standing as a scientific journal. It is now just another propaganda rag.
sorry, if life comes about by chance, it means nothing. morals mean nothing. our experiences mnean nothing. chance that creates life is no different than chance that destroys all life. there’s zero meaning to anything.
That’s the wrong perception of God. He laughs at those who mock Him.
I think that Hillary Clinton summed it up best. “At this point, what difference does it make?”
Good Hunting… from Varmint Al
Correct.
The “Designer” always was and always will be.
Otherwise there would be no Prime Mover.
Secular Evolution is constrained by time and space.
God is not.
What does government have to do with the theory of evolution. Nothing I think.
Evolution has nothing, zero, nada to do with the Big Bang or even the creation of life. It deals with what has come after.
Ignorance? So is the godlessness.
Valid scientific theory incorporates facts, tested hypotheses, observations and laws. What laws does evolutionary theory incorporate, never mind any tested hypotheses? Scientific theories fall down flat all the time.
Really? Then why did it need to be pushed by government?
>>You could have answered the question instead. What’s scientific about said theory? You don’t start with a conclusion and seek observations that might fit it, since it prejudices how you perceive the observation; that is unscientific at its core. Never mind the lack of observation of phenomena related to the conclusion. Cart before the horse.<<
You, along with many, don’t know what a Scientific Theory is.
You can opine until the cows come home but your sophistry does not change the fact you have no idea what we are talking about.
Nice try though. I give you a B+ on the BS o meter.
So your idea of a logical scientific explanation. Begins and ends with a supernatural event?
That’s religion not science.
I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. …Scientists are supposed to be objective. Here, Darwin clearly was not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.