Replies

As I am not a scientist, nor a religious fanatic, I can see this debate without all of the mumbo-jumbo. Every branch of science has gone through incredible transformation and revolution over the past 2,000 years. Religion used to account for all explanations. Then we became smarter.

Meteorology: The Roman Gods brought down the rain. No wait, the Bible says that doors in the sky open and water pours out. All the way to what we know now about evaporation, cloud formation, and condensation/precipitation.

Biology: Bible says bats are birds, no wait! They're mammals.

Astronomy: Atlas holds us up, no wait, The earth is the center of everything and the sun revolves around us. Now we know that our sun isn't even the center of everything, just a tiny speck in the universe.

Physics: From ignorance to Newton to Einstein to quantum mechanics we've seen physical laws broken, adapted, and altered. But each time we find out more and sometimes the break in between revolutions is longer than the course of our lifetimes.

The list goes on and on. Why would evolution be different? We are constantly learning, even to this day. Simply because we don't understand everything about the past doesn't mean that we fall back upon the mistakes of our ancestors. Science will provide an answer, it has only been 100 years. How long was it between Newton and Einstein? Darwin to B. Rabbit may be just around the corner. Evolution may change, it probably won't be exactly what it is today, but this is science, a proven institution, not faith. You confuse the two.

Sorry for poor "typesmanship", I'm too lazy to edit today.

but this is science, a proven institution, not faith.

Science is no more "proven" an institution than faith. Our faith in science has generally got more intense technical refinement than our faith in transcendental truths, but is nonetheless faith, at bottom.

Evolution may change, it probably won't be exactly what it is today, but this is science, a proven institution, not faith. You confuse the two.

Evolution is not science. It is an ideology, a philosophy, but it is not science. There are no clear and distinct facts to support it. Not even the fossil evidence supports it due to the numerous gaps which have not grown smaller with the finding of new fossils. The Cambrian explosion shows that numerous phyla have no possible ancestors. DNA makes the process of evolution far to complicated for it to be even remotely possible in any kind of realistic time frame. The tight relationships between the different functions of an organism makes random evolution totally impossible. Science has already disproved evolution, what is left to do it to bury it.