Replies

I have never heard the theory discussed in full without the big bang also being discussed; but, hey, if you want to discard it as unimportant, I'm willing to stick to what we see here on earth.

Sorry to but in, but I couldn't let this pass.

This is why scientists don't like to talk to creationists or ID'ers. Evolutionary theory applies to biology. When you say you've heard it discussed with the big bang theory, you're telling us that you haven't been exposed to scientific discussion, just interested laymen or creation/ID websites.

From some of your posts it's clear to me that your ideas about science come from these websites (or media reports - I think the media reports might be worse). So you're bringing a creationist/ID'er strawman to the table that we've all seen before. You really want to talk theology and find that folks are slightly hostile because they can't quite make the connection to where you're coming from because you say "evolution".

Sorry to interrupt.

I notice that non-creationists recognize a restricted sense of the word "evolution" to refer to biological evolution, the "origin of species," what Darwin wrote about. There's a more general sense of the word meaning "any change over time," but people tend to assume that a creationist arguing against "evolution" is disputing how the diversity of life arose.

But creationist mass-consumption literature tends to lump under one scientific header--"the Theory of Evolution"--all of biological evolution, cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology ... everything relating to an old universe changing over time according to naturalistic cause-and-effect principles. There are really two different dictionaries in play, here.