I generally feel that Evolution is a cult which first establishes its Conclusion and holds on to it come what may. Any new evidence is shoe-horned in to support the sacred Conclusion.
But I admit: here, at least, a scientist wrestled with uncomfortable evidence and ended up admitting to the Conclusion that it pointed to. Good for him!
That actually feels like Science.
Matter is incomprehensibly complex. The very blueprint for life is embedded in the tiniest subatomic particle. That didn’t happen by accident. I believe God created the universe/matter. I don’t really see evolution as threatening the idea of God.
‘I generally feel that Evolution is a cult which first establishes its Conclusion and holds on to it come what may. Any new evidence is shoe-horned in to support the sacred Conclusion.’
yes, of course, exactly the opposite of the way Biblical literalists operate...
Both are true
Creation and evolution
The only species that doesn’t evolve are liberals
Same here. When "Origins" came out, many abandoned the Catastrophism* view and adopted Uniformitarianism** as evolution would only work within that framework.
*Earth had largely been shaped by sudden, violent events, possibly worldwide in scope.
**Earth had been shaped by the same gradual forces that have been going on throughout all time.
IMO, Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision" and "Earth in Upheaval" are closer to what happened.