Yes, Creationism has unanswered questions, but that's how faith works...
Transitional specie fosils have been faked many, many, times. The faking is stil going on too, witness the latest fakes from China concerning dino to bird artifacts.
Yes, creationism and ID have many holes also but I think evolution should be taught fully, by fully I mean all the fakes, all the evidence that doesn't exist, all the theories that are presented as fact should be taught the way they really exist.
If this is the best we have then say so but be honest about it, tell them the truth about Lucy for instance, she is a chimpanzee, we know that now for sure but die hard evos keep saying she is a link.
Teach the truth, how hard can that be? Don't want to teach ID, fine, but teach the truth about evolution. Science has always had gaps and false trails, and scientists have always covered them, the false trails,lying and trying to hold on to something that was wrong. Evolution has reached that point where the evidence in the fossil record shows it has many, many gaps in the theory and it needs to be taught that way.Darwin was wrong in many of his suppositions. Teach the truth, it can't hurt.
Don't you agree?
(George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Prize in Science)
It is not merely that the theory of evolution has unanswered questions, it has a LOT of unanswered questions. Plus a plethora of unasked questions.
Which shall become apparent only upon the resolution of some of the questions already on the table.
I have always been troubled by chromosone counts, and how different species could have arisen by fractionation or fusion of various gene chains within chromosones. Cloning is a possibility, but WHAT DRIVES THE CLONING? This is surely not a random occurrence.
1 It gives no grounds for the existence of one, as opposed to numerous designers. The more complex a design, the more designers it tends to have (to say nothing of the craftsmen who put it together). Is ID being arbitrary--and a tad simplistic--in inferring only one?
3 You judge a designer by what he designs. Take a good look at this slaughterhouse! The natural world contains good, bad, and ugly. The best we can conclude is that the designer is indifferent--or very moody.
3 We are not justified in attributing to the cause more than what was required to produce the effect. Just because the designer could fashion this world does not mean he's all-powerful and capable of our wildest fantasies (a perfect after-life, for instance). The design argument can be used just as well, if not much better, by Hindus and pagans (many gods) and Zoroastrians (two gods: one nice, one bad). The contention that it suggests the existence of a Western-style deity is as hilarious as it is disingenuous.
Arguments based on analogies are notoriously weak. They have this basic structure: X shares certain features of Y, therfore X shares these additional features of Y. In the case of the design argument: the universe has parts that work together (like a clock, for instance); therefore, like a clock, it also had a designer.
Big problem: Such arguments are no better than the analogy they are based on (is the universe _really_ like a clock, or any design we know of?) The following seem equally tenable:
The universe is like a living creature; therefore another such creature gave birth to it.
The universe is like a plant; therefore it grew from some celestial garden.
Which of the above is more absurd? Is the universe more like a clock, vegetable, or animal? They're all preposterous because the universe is unique. We can't honestly say that it's _like_ anything. Consequently, all arguments based on analogies fail.
Ping.
You can study physical evidence all you want and make conclusions, but it really comes down to the Big Bang, and what happened/existed BEFORE the BB, or if the BB is only a part of a Bigger Bang. The secularists will simply fall on the explanation that it just IS. Some already have.
I think it's funny to consider that both schools arent totally right because both are wrong on the time frame. Many think G*d created the universe in 7 days. That's fine but what if 7 days to G*d is 7 billion years to us? Just a thought.
"The man who cannot believe his senses and the man who cannot believe anything else, are both insane, but their insanity is proved not by any error in their argument, but in the manifest mistake of their whole lives. They have both locked themselves up in two boxes, painted inside with the sun and stars; they are both unable to get out, the one into the health and happiness of heaven and the other even into the health and happiness of the earth."
G.K.Chesterton
Orthodoxy, 1908
BTTT
It ain't so.
Second, you guys have really got to find another hobby!
I have a serious question and would like to avoid the "you're an idiot" nature of these threads.
This is directed to the pro-evolutionists primarily and it is a good faith attempt to understand something. So here goes.
IF God exists, then what sort of evidence would there be of that in the physical world?
If you say that that is not the province of science, then my response would be that science is not doing enough of its job. If you say that science must assume that God doesn't exist or at least if He does then there is no evidence of it in the physical world, then isn't the correct response that science the is by its very nature assuming a negative response to the question at hand?
Ask any philosopher worth his salt and he will tell you that it is possible that God exists. If that is possible, then I want to know how that is manifest in the physical world. But one problem is that I see science is not by its very nature willing to entertain such a discussion.
What am I missing here? If someone could give a good natured but hard headed post I would be grateful.
>>For as the auxin saga shows, virtually no area of science is free of doubt...<<
So true of science! Unfortunately, a point lost on religious evolutionists here.
2. Granting that something does exist, it's ultimate nature would be infinite and therefore, unintelligible to a finite mind.
3. Granting something to exist, and that it could be understood, it couldn't be explained to another.
-Jainist Conundrum
What did auxin evolve from?
Evolution, Eugenics, Socialism.