Posted on 02/28/2002 6:35:58 PM PST by Heartlander
Yes? They were mostly deists, not Christians, so the Christian God would not appear in their schools... and that means they wouldn't necessarily be opposed to evolution, either.
Oh, it's just that we haven't had time to stop beating our wives lately.
I think you will find that most knowledgeable evolutionists "pass along" theory as theory and fact as fact. The distinction is actually important to us, as the very purpose of a scientific theory is to explain facts, and the role of facts is to test theories. We are therefore eager to point out the large arrays of facts (patterns of both genetic and morphological similarities, patterns of biogeographical distribution, the temporal ordering and sequential appearances and disappearances of fossil organisms in the geological column, observations of in situ speciation and evidence of historically recent speciation events, etc, etc) that are non-gratuitously explained only on the assumption of common descent. We are also happy to point out that evolution is incompatible with many otherwise plausible facts (29 Evidences for Macroevolution provides surveys of both facts uniquely explained by evolution, and potentional falsifications) and that, like other genuinely scientific theories, it is thereby vulnerable to many possible falsifications, but has withstood these tests.
Finally, we evolutionists tend to find it is creationists who have faulty, simplistic, incoherent or (quite often) pathological misunderstandings of the relationship between theories and facts.
I gather what you are implying is that as we further out understanding of the natural world thru experimentation and discovery, our subsequent views change also. I don't see a problem here. (And what are these "laws" you are talking about?)
You would like to think that science claims "something came from absolutely nothing." But science says that every effect has a cause.
Actually, everything, absolutely everything on earth, rocks, leaves, living animals, all came from hydrogen. That gold filling you might have in your mouth was not made by any known natural process on earth. It started out as hydrogen, compressed by the forces of a sun. Before it got to earth it was expelled by an exploding sun, then eventually became part of the earth.
Our earth, our solar system, all the solar systems in the universe were made from hydrogen. All that is, is made from hydrogen that was forged by the four dimentional forces: Gravity, the Strong Force, the Weak Force and Electromagnetism. And life too, came from hydrogen.
Maybe it works for them, but I am afraid Darwinians just want that to happen to compare each others' evolved features, like German aryanism obsessed fascists. In fact, you bring a good point. I can see the headlines: Darwinian class "nakes" children, parents outraged.
DNA in a dead organism degrades within 50,000 years; this is fairly long enough that biologists have been able to establish relationships through genetic analysis between some extinct animals and their extant relatives.
DNA in living critters is constantly being repaired by enzymes. Sometimes the DNA is damaged beyond repair, but this is typically a localized event within an organism (affecting a few cells, not the entire being). This results in such things as cancer.
Truthfully, there is no problem here.
Not quite. Evolution is:
Survival of the most adapted to a particular environment.
Survival of the most sexually attractive to the opposite sex.
Survival of the most able to alter the environment.
Survival of those most capable of cooperating to overcome the environment.
Etc.
"Survival of the fittest" is tossed out as some sort of indictment of evolution, but creationists seldom actually attempt to understand what that phrase means, instead believing it means that individuals battle against their fellows for survival regardless of the consequences. Such a simplistic view, if carried to its logical conclusion, would indicate that life would have rendered itself nonliving ages ago. Biologists have long known that "survival of the fittest" is a much more complicated concept than creationists believe -- the trouble is educating creationists that their particular view is seldom observed in nature.
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massi ve mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 15].
This this post is what?? A personal attack to discredit. That would make you a what?
Hypocrite.
Now that's funny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.