Replies

I don't have a narrow view of the world, I have very broad view of the world, I look at the scientific evidence and decide based on that. I don't have a view of the world that is based on a book that someone has convinced me is the word of god or whatever.

Actually, you look at interpretations of data (the scientific evidence), and you deside based off of that. There's nothing wrong with that. However, there is still a difference between the scientific evidence, and the interpretation of that evidence. As for the 'book', there's historical evidence helping to lead to it's own validity. I'm willing to accept that there might be more to Reality then what materialism claims. And such interesting modern theories as QM seem to suggest that there's far more out there then what observe (or might even be able to observe). You seem to infer that believing in such a thing as the Bible, and believing in science, is exlusionary. I would have to dissagree with you. Allowing for the possibility of something more then materlistic theories doesn't exactly strike me as narrow minded; granted that the possibility isn't illogical, and has at least an average validity.

Book is right, narrow view of the world, Evolution is the best theory that fits the facts, broad view. Pretty simple if you ask me.

Interpretation (human interpretation, if I might add) of bones is right, narrow view of the world. Evolution does support the facts...as far as actual observable facts go (organisms change). And historical evolution may be fairly valid as far as interprations of the evidence goes. However, what's narrow about the belief in historical evolution (from a good portion of evolutionists that I've seen), is that they claim it can be the only valid theory. This isn't being very objective, or open minded, imho.

-The Hajman-

When a theory comes along that replaces evolution and the facts fit it better then the current theory, then evolutionists will move over to that theory, if it actually shows that evolution is indeed not the case.

On the other hand, if indeed a new theory comes into existence, the creationists will be the first ones to say that it isn't true and try to debunk it. The evolutionists will take a close look at it and decide on the available evidence.

Creationism CANNOT debunk evolution, only science will do that, and at this point no other theory fits the available facts as well as evolution does.

This isn't being very objective...

Good luck with the objective angle. I was making the same point recently when someone said: "By the way, the word objective is not a crucifix to keep the vampires at bay."

Some appear to think being objective and rejecting evolution isn't possible to anyone who's looked at the evidence. In my objectivity I often forget theirs is the only valid interpretation. The point some try to make is if you've looked at the evidence and still reject evolution, you're not being objective, you're stupid, or you don't understand what you just read. Talk about closed-minded arrogance! Although I must admit I'm pleased with the posts of some here recently. Perhaps I'm digressing. Back to the books...