[Right Wing Professor]

But if one happens to 'believe' differently than this esteemed Doctor, they'd be considered an ignorant, backward fundamentalist.

The early history of life is still an area of research where there's a great deal of uncertainty. In such a situation, it's reasonable that there be a plethora of competing, speculative hypotheses. The difference between this and religion is that religion seldom admits uncertainty that might be resolved later by human inquiry. It either dictates the truth, or it claims the truth is some mystery beyond human understanding.

I personally don't believe this hypothesis. I am most certainly not a fundamentalist.

[Bigh4u2]

"It either dictates the truth, or it claims the truth is some mystery beyond human understanding."

Which has been proven out to be correct.

Hence the 'uncertainty' in scientific exploration.

If science were 'certain' of it's stated claims, then many parts of the Bible wouldn't be a 'mystery', but merely a story of proven or unproven events.

[pgyanke]

The early history of life is still an area of research where there's a great deal of uncertainty.

There's uncertainty primarily because people are uncertain about the truth that's been told to them. Research the historical record of many early civilizations and you find strikingly similar themes. In some, you find geneological recording of lineage to creation itself.

The uncertainty we experience through time is from those who cut off their nose to spite their faces. The Bible has NEVER BEEN PROVED INACCURATE. There are some instances of timing that have been called into question but the geological and archeological records we've found through the years have corroborated Biblical accounts... despite the naysayers. God created the world in six days. Later in the Bible we read that a day for God can be 1,000 years. The real issue isn't the timing but the source. The point of the creation story isn't an exact reasoning of just how long it took but to give credit where credit is due.

Instead of working so hard to prove new ideas correct to change the historical record, it would be interesting to see how much we could learn by just examining the world around us and drawing conclusions.

[js1138]

Whatever became of the hypothesis that the direction of life flipped due to the production of oxygen?

[asformeandformyhouse]

The difference between this and religion is that religion seldom admits uncertainty that might be resolved later by human inquiry. It either dictates the truth, or it claims the truth is some mystery beyond human understanding.

That makes as much sense as the guy who wants proof of God. If God can be proven, then he's not much of a God, is he? If God states something, then by the very definition of God, it must be so to that believer and a believer would be disingenuous to admit any 'uncertainty'. That may sound like a cop-out to you, but if you're honest with yourself and put away your disdain for 'religion', then you'll have to at least see that just as any religion is made up of it's 'believers', so is this doctor's.