Replies

And it’s the onnnnly theory that does that? We got evolution and now we’re not curious any more? I’m not a scientist, but I’ve never seen any “evidence” for evolution that could not also be used as evidence for, for instance, creation.

We are still curious. The theory of evolution is itself evolving. There was first a belief in a gradual and continuous evolution. Now there is a stronger belief that evolution occurred in bursts (punctuated equilibrium). There is good evidence that some of what we see was created by catastrophic events. These data are misused by creationists to suggest that everything we see was created by either a catastrophe like The Flood or a singular event like the literal Six Days of Creation.

We used to think that most DNA was "junk DNA", but now they are discovering important aspects of this "junk DNA". Also, Lamarckians were cast into the pit of pseudoscience, but now there is this emerging field of epigenetics that walks and quacks a lot like Lamarck. There is also growing evidence that DNA is not the entire story, but how it interacts with the soup of amino acids it helps to create.

Scientists are open to modifying and even overturning their prior paradigms. After all that is what happened with regard to the initially heretical theory of plate tectonics. It seems that it is the Young Earth Creationists who are the ones that are not curious or open to discussion.

And it’s the onnnnly theory that does that?

Show me a better theory, that explains more... for which there is more evidence... that is more coherent and consistent... that has a better proven track record... that is more predictive... that has more utility. Every honest evolutionary scientist would be delighted to hear what you've got!

I’m not a scientist, but I’ve never seen any “evidence” for evolution

"Well, I admit that I've never read the Bible, but I've still never read a Bible verse that..." See how silly that sounds?

[...] that could not also be used as evidence for, for instance, creation.

Only if the "creation" to which you are referring is not the Biblical creation. Only if the "creation" to which you are referring is, ultimately, virtually indistinguishable from the Theory of Evolution. Yes: Say that a Biblical day is perhaps actually a hundred million years in length... Say that the exact sequence of the appearance of animals, plants, etc. is not important...Soften up every claim the Bible makes until you are left with nothing but porridge... And then you'll end up with a Creation Story that reads like "On the Origin of Species."

Regards,