quote:
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. There’s no question that it happens. The question is, “How does it happen?” A theory attempts to answer that question.
My reply:
Although perhaps unintentionally, you are engaging in classic equivocation. Yes, evolution is a theory. And yes, evolution is a fact too — but not with the same definition of the word “evolution.”
On the one hand, the word “evolution” can simply mean change over time, which absolutely *nobody* denies. On the other hand, the word “evolution” can be used to refer to purely naturalistic, unguided evolution from inanimate matter (or alternatively, from the first living cell) to human beings. If you think that is an established “fact,” you are extremely confused.
By the way, these truths have been pointed out many, many times in many ways right here on FR, but evolutionists never seem to remember.
Another mole whacked. How long before it pops up again? And bets?
Many creationists haven't gone with their brethren and hopped on the ID bandwagon. You didn't notice that creation museum that recently opened?
If you think that is an established “fact,” you are extremely confused. By the way, these truths have been pointed out many, many times in many ways right here on FR, but evolutionists never seem to remember.
These truths are almost always pointed out by evolutionists when a creationist is confused on the issue. It usually happens when creationists try to play with the definition of "theory."
A few pages back, the theories of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium were brought up to demonstrate how there are different ways to explain what happens. Neither proponents of gradualism nor proponents of punctuated equilibrium deny that "change over time" happens. They argue on how is that change best described (i.e. theory).
On the other hand, the word “evolution” can be used to refer to purely naturalistic, unguided evolution from inanimate matter (or alternatively, from the first living cell) to human beings. If you think that is an established “fact,” you are extremely confused.
No, I don't think I'm confused on this matter. Your word choice is appropriate. If it were not purely naturalistic and unguided, then it would be supernaturalistic and guided, the result of which would be beyond the realm of science.