Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Prime Choice

I don't think it has much to do with acquiescence to religious beliefs. There are some who take that tact but it doesn't accomplish much. Intelligent design or the theory of abrupt appearance whichever one is to take both make scientifically testable hypothesizes that attempt to step back from or extend standard evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory currently is built on a series of rather fragile and often contradictory ideas and is largely without credible proofs.

What has been proven is that micro-evolution occurs which is the ability of an organism to adapt based upon preexisting genetic variability. Something as basic as proving phylogeny such as from amphibians to reptiles has been largely based upon fantastic drawings in textbooks than scientific proof.
The fossil Seymouria is put forth as an example of a bridge but it is no less amphibian than any other amphibian futher more structural similiarity alone does not necessarily indicate phylogeny and with fossils we only have the merest structural remains. One other important fact is that reptiles were living on earth some 30 million years before Seymouria. I think this illustrates a hopeless need to grasp even the faintest evidence as proof.

Regardless I think the debate concerning evolution is good for futhering science because it will force all involved to improve and refine their thinking because currently there are many content to live in a delusion that evolutionary theory is basically complete. I don't believe this and I think honest scientists know that we are just scraping the edge of what is the true complexity of the evolution of life on Earth and we will not make much progress posturing in our little hidey holes.


26 posted on 09/13/2005 5:12:30 PM PDT by Ma3lst0rm (Its turtles all the way down!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: Ma3lst0rm
Intelligent design or the theory of abrupt appearance whichever one is to take both make scientifically testable hypothesizes that attempt to step back from or extend standard evolutionary theory.

It's all a little too convenient...like the misguided "active principle" theory. It all goes up to a certain point and says, "Well, that was God's work! End of discussion!"

That is the antithesis of science.

And between you and me, I don't want Leftist union schoolteachers trying to explain the Divine in a science class. I've seen what those suckers have done with math. It ain't pretty.

42 posted on 09/13/2005 5:58:14 PM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson