is a blue eyed dog OK
Posted on 11/19/2004 10:40:08 AM PST by jcsmonogram
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- Some 145 years after the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, controversy about the validity and implications of his theory still rages. Darwin personally encountered much resistance after his book was published in 1859. Seventy-nine years ago, the famous Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee brought the issue of exactly where human beings came from into sharp public focus in the United States. Indeed, as recently as this month, a court case in Cobb County, Ga., dealing with the treatment of evolution and creationism in school textbooks received nationwide publicity. November's National Geographic Magazine asked on its cover: "Was Darwin Wrong?" and then proceeded to devote 33 pages to answering that question.
Darwin might be surprised to find such debate still raging nearly a century and a half after he published his book. He might also be surprised to find that even today there is significantly less than majority agreement from the American public that his theory of evolution is supported by the evidence.
Gallup has asked Americans twice in the last three years to respond to the following question about Darwin's theory:
Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is – [ROTATED: a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, (or) just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence], or don't you know enough about it to say?
(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ...
Is that supposed to be an illustration of deductive logic?
Or did you forget the /sarcasm tag?
Science has theories and proofs, and often the "proofs" turn out to be incomplete. Sometimes the Laws need to be adjusted, in the face of new evidence.
That doesn't make them "useless" but it does make them fallible. People mistakenly believe science is infallible.
That is the error.
That is why science will eventually "correct" their errors, far more readily than pseudo-science will correct theirs. Pseudo-science is the New Religion.
I assume that any apparent contradictions are either incomplete analysis or errors, and if we keep looking we may get closer to The Truth, i.e. the Grand Unification Theory
As they say on X Files - "The Truth is out there".
> Some scientists are embarrassed when asked, that they cannot explain what existed before the "Big Bang".
Don;t know why. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer, and far more honest thatn many.
> Others are not afraid to utter the Lord's name confidently along with their scientific thought.
Yes, and often that Lord's name is Shiva.
Or Jesus was telling a parable.
So, if someone is not a Christian, you automatically assume they're not telling the truth?
45% believe that God created Man in present form at one time in the past 10,000 years or so.
I'd expect a high percentage of that percentage voted for Bush.
As support for my expectation, 26% of those identifying as Conservative (and 29% identifying as Republican) think that "Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is a Scientific Theory Well Supported by the Evidence."
"Third of Americans Say Evidence Has Supported Darwin's Evolution Theory"
Not surprising, considering the NEA's origina and agenda, and the fact that grade school textbooks still show things like the long-disgarded "horse ascent" scam on the inside cover.
I'm actually surprised that 2/3 overcame the public school brainwashing enough to know its a theory and not supported by the evidence.
Actually, I can design an Earth centric coordinate system that works just fine.
However, The Sun/Earth system actually revolves around a common center of mass that just happens to be located inside the Sun do the a vast disparagy in mass between the two objects..
Now I know how Bill Murray felt in Groundhog Day.
SN1987A gave concrete evidence that it exploded about 170,000 years ago.
Now ask who believes in talking snakes.
How the first organism was created hasn't much to do with anything Darwin ever wrote or said.
Pure codswallop!!
I wish I had more time for this thread, but I must head to the lab.
Why does it happen?
What is the cause and effect?
Natural selection or genetic predisposition? (i.e.DNA)
Darwin has the only plausible theory to explain it, but it is still dreadfully incomplete. That doesn't mean it is wrong, but it does mean that portions of it MAY BE wrong. We have no way of knowing which parts.
If PETA asserts "facts" about meat, I assume their bias renders their "facts" questionable, at best.
And was that a rational belief or irrational belief?
The Flat Earth Society had a rational belief too, and a theory to prove it.
So your point about well established belief is ....??
Yes, I too have noticed that the evolutionists are the same old crowd with the same old worn out arguments. That all indicates that your side is not growing. Of course that does not prove anything except that evolutionist ad hominem attacks are not at all persuasive.
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.