board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Back to the dark ages

Post Reply   Page 2 of 22  [ 438 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 522 »
Author Message
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:51 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
Um, there is not plenty of evidence against the theory of evolution. If there was, then it would no longer be a theory.
Obviously that isn't true, because there is plenty of evidence against it (hence the large numbers of people who don't subscribe), and it is still taught as the prevailing theory.


Quote:
this is the best explanation we have to date based on the available data. That includes evolution, gavity, electromagnetism, gas pressure, germ theory, relativism, etc.
I would not put evolution in the same class as gravity, electromagnetism and the others you mention. It shouldn't be given that status, because it isn't as sound a theory as those others. Or put another way, why are there not similarly large numbers of people who disbelieve the prevailing theories of gravity, electromagnetism, gas pressure etc.?


Quote:
Hypothesis: based on available data, I suspect that things operate this way.
Yes, and I suspect that there would be less of a problem with evolution being taught if it were made clear that it is being presented as 'we suspect things happened this way'.


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 4:53 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
God's a theory. :Q :D


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 5:04 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Cerin,

Let me take this one on because my students bring it up fairly routinely in one of my classes.

There is plenty of evidence against the theory of evolution (hence the large group of people who continue to disbelieve it, including many scientists). I read a book on it once which was very convincing. Unfortunately, I didn't retain many of the scientific details. It has to do with problems with the fossil record and out of place artifacts, and I don't remember what else.

There are two scientists who have chosen to 'take on' the theory of evolution (and I've also forgotten their names) by challenging the results of Carbon-14 dating.

They've made some pretty strong arguments in some cases - that's my understanding - but this does not unseat the theory of evolution; it only calls into question the dating of certain fossil records.

Carbon-14 dating was not available to Darwin when he developed the theory and the theory does not rest on this.

Yovargas is correct when he says that we do not properly teach scientific methodology in high school, and students come out with the idea that science provides certainty about facts, and that challenging those facts is what is required to overthrow theory. This is not correct. It is not what science does.

Science is not distinguished by the facts it accumulates - which have often been wrong, historically. Science is distinguished by the method it uses to gather facts and the method it uses to evaluate explanations of those facts.

Intelligent design does not belong in science class because it proceeds by a different method. We may prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is an inferior theory and intelligent design is the superior theory, and intelligent design STILL would not belong in a science class because it proceeds by a different method.

There are two key principles that constitute the scientific method:

1. Only material, observable information is admissable.
2. In positing explanations for what is observed, all statements must be falsifiable.

Science restricts itself to a narrow realm of human experience - the matieral, observable experience - because our methods cannot be applied to other kinds of experience. When scientists express opinion about anything that is not observable, they are speaking outside their profession.

And every scientific query begins by attempting to disprove the theory in question. We are NEVER looking for data to prove a theory. Never. We are ALWAYS looking for ways to frame our question so that the theory can be disproven.

The body of scientific theory as such is the collection of hypotheses that have not yet been disproven.

In order for intelligent design to be taught in science classes it would have to begin by attempting to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer. You might imagine that proponents of the theory do not proceed in this manner. The intelligent designer is, furthermore, not observable ... its existence can be postulated but neither proven nor disproven by direct observation, so this can never be a scientific theory per se.

We stick to our method because it works - where material, observable phenomenon are concerned. It gives us successful results in all sorts of hitherto unimaginable areas. It allowed us to cure all kinds of diseases and go to the moon. That is the only justification for scientific method. It is useful.

It says nothing, and can say nothing, about our beliefs concerning things that are not material and observable. Science does not, for example, say that there is no God. It says nothing, and can say nothing about God because God is not directly observable.

Not everything posited by science is directly observable - things that happened in the distant past, for example, are not directly observable. But in those cases we have developed secondary methods for determining what postulates are supported and what postulates are not supported. Darwin himself developed much of the methodology for this kind of inquiry. There is also a specific methodology for comparing two competing theories - very, very difficult to do. People train for years just to learn how to frame questions the right way so that competing theories can be compared, and, in truth, not many scientists are very good at this. Most of us just test unimportant hypothesis or develop secondary math models along the edges of important theories using techniques that other, smarter people have developed. :) This by itself is hard enough, believe me!

I just object to it being taught as the undisputed truth.

If evolutionary science is taught this way, then it is taught wrongly. Science is not about undisputed truth. There are no undisputed theories in science. Science is about method.

The theory of "evolution" ... is a misnomer. Darwin did not use this word for his theory. His theory is the theory of "natural selection." The theory of natural selection says simply this: competition for scarce resources is sufficient to explain speciation.

This theory has never been disproven. We have not yet found any example of a mutation that resulted in a new species but cannot be explained in terms of the reproductive advantage it conferred.

Finding a species whose emergence cannot be explained in terms of reproductive advantage is the ONLY way this theory can be called into question. The age of a particular fossil is irrelevant to the theory. In fact, the recent availability of DNA testing has caused the greatest stir and the greatest amount of reclassification within the field. The family relationships between animals (claves) was previously determined by anatomical similarity and apparent lines of descent (which does depend on the fossil record) but now that we can test their DNA we have found that animals thought to be closely related (alligators and crocodiles, for example) are not so. But this does not overturn the theory, it is a correction around the edges of the theory, if you will. We may re-order the animals in any number of ways without calling into question the fact that they emergered as species because they possessed some reproductive advantage over their competition.

Natural selection is often described as "survival of the fittest," but this description is also incorrect because the fittest chicken can be walking down the road and a rock falls on his head (as one of my professors put it). There is no guarantee that within a given environment a perfectly appropriate mutation will appear, or that if such a mutation appeared it would survive to reproductive maturity. There is no 'end-game' in natural selection. It is a stochastic process. On average, those mutations that confer some competitive advantage will survive to reproductive maturity and they will reproduce. They will end up being the species we observe.

Technically, this theory does not even contradict intelligent design. It says nothing about how the process started, or whether some end result was intended by some intelligence outside the system. It only says that the observable species can be explained in terms of their competitive advantage.

Anyone who wants to say that God set the process in motion, or intervened to give souls to humans is free to do so. But we can't test such assertions using scientific methodology and so those assertions don't belong in a science class.

Jn

Last edited by Jnyusa on Thu 10 Nov , 2005 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Pippin4242
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 5:05 pm
Hasta la victoria, siempre
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3978
Joined: Sun 13 Mar , 2005 7:49 pm
Location: Outer Heaven
 
Cerin wrote:
Quote:
this is the best explanation we have to date based on the available data. That includes evolution, gavity, electromagnetism, gas pressure, germ theory, relativism, etc.
I would not put evolution in the same class as gravity, electromagnetism and the others you mention. It shouldn't be given that status, because it isn't as sound a theory as those others. Or put another way, why are there not similarly large numbers of people who disbelieve the prevailing theories of gravity, electromagnetism, gas pressure etc.?
I don't know the answer to this one, but I will put forward another question: how many people do you know who desperately want to disprove gravity?

*~Pips~*

_________________

Avatar is a male me, drawn by a very close friend. Just don't ask why.


Top
Profile Quote
Meril36
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 5:10 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 869
Joined: Thu 01 Sep , 2005 7:06 pm
Location: Lancaster, CA
 
Pippin4242 wrote:
how many people do you know who desperately want to disprove gravity?
That is a good point. None of those other theories Cerin mentioned challenges anyone's perception of their faith. The theory of evolution does.

_________________

Trying for profundity only limits depth.

With all the anger in the land, how long before the judgement day? Before we cut the fat ones down to size? Before the barricades arise?

Visit my art gallery at deviantART.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 5:14 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
Pippin, that's a great question!

Cerin: Obviously that isn't true, because there is plenty of evidence against it (hence the large numbers of people who don't subscribe), and it is still taught as the prevailing theory.

There is no evidence whatsoever, so far, that natural selection is an inadequate explanation for speciation, and there are not large numbers of scientists who do not subscribe to it.

I would not put evolution in the same class as gravity, electromagnetism and the others you mention. It shouldn't be given that status, because it isn't as sound a theory as those others.

Natural selection beongs in exactly the same class as these other things. You're just not up on the alternative theories in physics because they do not receive the same publicity, and no one is trying to overturn unified field theory in the state legislatures because it does not (yet) appear to challenge their religious beliefs.

Jn

p.s. cross-posted with Meril to say the same thing :)

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
eborr
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 5:16 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 7:07 pm
Location: Member barely active
 
as I have said somewhere else c14 if calibrated is pretty reliable - it's is calibrated against tree-rings (dendrochronology) which can be counted with the mark one eyeball - The principle is simple enough, the weather affects the nature of the tree- so each year affects thes the tree differently - so eahc year you get a unique pattern - a pattern that is pretty uniformly reflected in in each tree of the same species in the same general location.

Thus by comparing wood - both recent and ancient and lining up the tree rings you can construct a time line going backwards. Hence it's possible to pretty acurately date any large piece of wood.

Through careful comparison of various wooden objects it's possible to construct sequences going back about 10,000 years.

What has then been done is that a small sample of each of the ancient trees has been taken and these have been subjected to c14 analysis.

Enough of these analysis were taken to enable a project of c14 verification.

What this prooved was that c14 half life decay was not uniform - and generally c14 dates are to young.

More than 10.000 years ago and c14 is becoming shaky. If anyone tried to argue that c14 is ropey in Neolithic or more recent times then I would be extremely suspicious. There is the potential for the odd c14 sample to become contaminated, but the normal practice is to take a number of samples from different organic materials to act as a safety check.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 5:20 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
When we talk about Ordovician fossils we're not talking about the Neolithic Age, are we!

But the theory of natural selection does not rest on the age of the fossils.

Unless one argues that the world is only 7000 years old (as was argued ... what ... 200 years ago?) Then there would not be enough time for natural selective processes to work. But no one is arguing that today, as far as I know.

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Pippin4242
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 5:28 pm
Hasta la victoria, siempre
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 3978
Joined: Sun 13 Mar , 2005 7:49 pm
Location: Outer Heaven
 
Jnyusa wrote:
Unless one argues that the world is only 7000 years old (as was argued ... what ... 200 years ago?) Then there would not be enough time for natural selective processes to work. But no one is arguing that today, as far as I know.
Well, that's something. :)

BTW, I cross-posted with you earlier. Brilliant stuff. Knew someone here would be able to answer. :D

*~Pips~*

_________________

Avatar is a male me, drawn by a very close friend. Just don't ask why.


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 5:33 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
Cerin wrote:
Ara-anna wrote:
Something like the world is flat. Or the sun revolves around the earth stuff.
Or that man evolved from lower life forms. :D
Our ancestors were not "lower" than us. What a peculiar idea! They were, obviously, older than us, since we evolved from them. But in what way were they supposedly "lower"? That word implies many things, and they are all unpleasant. Mostly, it implies that we are "higher". We're not. As far as Evolution goes, we're just another life form.

Man evolved from "earlier" life forms. The other primates that exist today also evolved from "earlier" life forms. We SHARE many of those ancestors. Modern Chimpanzees and Homo Sapiens share nearly 99% DNA.

The "tree of life" is a bush. One with many branches and twigs. It is not a Pyramid with Man at the apex, standing triumphant, trampling all that went before.

Those who would discard the Theory of Evolution are pathetically mistaken as to their place in the universe. This "human centred" universe of the creationists is a bizarre place, where Man and his gods are "special".

We are the children of Nature. Only we think we are her favourites. We're not. What do we get from denying our origins? Some crazy sense of superiority? Some mystical notion that we are above the laws that govern the universe?


Top
Profile Quote
Mummpizz
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 5:52 pm
Gloriosus
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Wed 08 Dec , 2004 11:10 am
Location: history (repeats itself)
Contact: Website
 
Btw. wasn't Kansas the state that wanted to fix the number "Pi" in a simplified form by 3,15 only, omitting the long tail of numbers that follow the original 3,146… ?

I see the religious frenzy that led to this misdecision as a trend, not as an evolution of man nearer to god. Trends come and go. This trend will go, too.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:00 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Vison--

We are special only in that we alone (from what we know) are capable of looking at the whole mess and SEEING what our place in it is. We are not mired in the day-to-day business of mere existence, because we have consciousness (the ability to create a mental picture of our reality, and manipulate it speculatively) and language (the ability to share that mental picture) to a degree nothing else does, or has (again, so far as we know).

All of which amounts to exactly one small hill of beans insofar as natural selection goes. We should take sober stock of exactly how fragile our place in the universe, because there's no guarantee we'll be around all that long, or that anything else will ever develop consciousness as we have.

Cerin--
Quote:
Yes, and I suspect that there would be less of a problem with evolution being taught if it were made clear that it is being presented as 'we suspect things happened this way'.
Except that wouldn't be true. There are specific aspects within evolutionary theory that are, at any given time, at the stage of a hypothesis. But given the evidence, there is no other cogent explanation than the theory as a whole for the current state of life on earth. What most evolution deniers engage in is the logical error of identifying specific areas within the theory that are still being worked on, and pointing to the uncertainty there as proof that the whole idea is wrong. This is analagous to seeing a test pilot or two lose control of experimental aircraft and crash and determining from that evidence that aerodynamics is a lie, and that faeries make planes fly.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:00 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
Not this again...

To address the topic of the thread. Intelligent design should not be taught as science. For the EXACT SAME REASON, evolution of man from single celled life should not be tought as science.

It's not science as science should be tought to High Schoolers who have enough trouble learning how to read, much less differentiate between what is experimental science and only science because it's guessed at using scientific methods.

If Evolution of man from single celled life was tought in a history or anthropology class, that's one thing. But science in high school should be about the scientific method, hypothesis, experiment, data, not the collective opinion of enough scientists to call it a Theory.

My 9th grade Biology teacher was a better teacher than I gave him credit for. He wouldn't back down from the "Evolution is scientific fact" statement, but he didn't crack down on me for answering differently on tests ;). The thing is, many people in that class will never understand that "scientific fact" or "Theory" or whatever you want to call it, does not mean that Scientist KNOW things happened that way. They here "Fact" and "Scientific" and think evolution has been proven, and people that do not believe it are religious nuts. This is a failure of education.

it wasn't until 12th grade, when I had the same teacher again, and was in an Advanced Biology class, that we actually did a recombinant DNA experiment and I could see evolution at work in a petrie dish that I was able to understand the difference between what we see as evolution on a daily basis, and what the "Theory of Evolution" says about the origins of mankind.

There is a difference between the two, and the desire or agenda to classify them as the same seems to me to be a desire for Science to combat religion. It is a desire (not by scientists necessarily) to have a weapon against religion and religious explanations for mankinds origin.

It's not enough to say "I don't believe in your religion," people need to be able to say "Your religion is wrong, therefore I don't believe it."

So, to sum up, I think Evolution should be taught in High Schools as an experimental science. What can we do that shows evolution. repeat Mendel's experiments, and Talk about Darwin's Origin of Species (not failing to mention, of course, his own reservations with his hypothesis). Students can see for themselves that it is "Scientific fact." And some of them will hypothesize that this mechanism could explain the origin of man, and others will not.

But the bottom line is, they will not be misled in what it actually represents, and they will not be indoctrinated against alternative ideas for the origins of mankind.


Top
Profile Quote
vison
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:01 pm
Best friends forever
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 6546
Joined: Fri 04 Feb , 2005 4:49 am
 
Mummpizz wrote:
Btw. wasn't Kansas the state that wanted to fix the number "Pi" in a simplified form by 3,15 only, omitting the long tail of numbers that follow the original 3,146… ?

I see the religious frenzy that led to this misdecision as a trend, not as an evolution of man nearer to god. Trends come and go. This trend will go, too.
I read that it was Texas. So who knows?

The story of how Archimedes arrived at the value for Pi is fascinating. He was an amazing man, in the same league as Stephen Hawking and Einstein and Isaac Newton, and think of the tools he had to use!!! He didn't even have a pencil.


Top
Profile Quote
Axordil
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:12 pm
Not so deep as a well
Offline
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue 11 Jan , 2005 3:02 am
Location: In your wildest dreams
 
Quote:
not the collective opinion of enough scientists to call it a Theory.
All ANY scientific theory is: the collective opinion of enough scientists, based on the available evidence. That includes the theories of gravitation, relativity, evolution, and all the other currently held ones. It ALSO includes theories now on the dustpile of scientific history, such as phlogiston, which were discarded when the evidence demonstrated they could not be true.

If a theory can't be demonstrated to be untrue, it isn't science. Or positively: a theory is science if and only if it could possibly be demonstrated to be untrue. Intelligent design cannot be demonstrated to be untrue, therefore, it isn't science. Evolution can be demonstrated (hypothetically) to be untrue, therefore, it is science.

All this is part and parcel of the scientific method, which is a meaningless exercize anyway if you don't have examples from the history of science, past and current, to work with.

_________________

Destiny is a rhythm track on which we must improvise.

In some cases, firing the drummer helps.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:12 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Thank you, Jnyusa.

As I said, I agree that intelligent design should not be taught as science.
Quote:
The theory of "evolution" ... is a misnomer. Darwin did not use this word for his theory. His theory is the theory of "natural selection."
And does this theory of 'natural selection' lead to the notion that all species evolved from simpler life forms? Because that is the idea I think most people are referring to when they talk about teaching 'evolution'.

Quote:
Finding a species whose emergence cannot be explained in terms of reproductive advantage is the ONLY way this theory can be called into question.

I'm afraid my ignorance makes it difficult for me to discuss this intelligently. Are you suggesting that every known species' emergence can currently be explained in terms of reproductive advantage? So how, for example, is our emergence explained in those terms?

Quote:
We may re-order the animals in any number of ways without calling into question the fact that they emergered as species because they possessed some reproductive advantage over their competition.
You are saying this is fact. So it is not theory? Have we observed the emergence of a species?

Quote:
On average, those mutations that confer some competitive advantage will survive to reproductive maturity and they will reproduce. They will end up being the species we observe.
And this is the theory that we are talking about when we talk about 'evolution'? And the logical conclusion is that human beings (and all other species) evolved from some other form of life?

(I really do apologize for my lack of knowledge in this area.)

Quote:
There is no evidence whatsoever, so far, that natural selection is an inadequate explanation for speciation, and there are not large numbers of scientists who do not subscribe to it.

Well then, why and how does this debate exist? I know it does exist, and it was my understanding that there are many scientists who do not subscribe to the idea that the species we see today evolved from simpler life forms. But obviously I don't know enough myself to make any sort of case.

Quote:
You're just not up on the alternative theories in physics because they do not receive the same publicity
Or perhaps because they are not (or were not) taught alongside the prevailing theories?

Quote:
and no one is trying to overturn unified field theory in the state legislatures because it does not (yet) appear to challenge their religious beliefs.
Honestly, I've always thought the problem was that people felt evolution was being taught as fact rather than in terms of 'we suspect this is what happened.' At least, that has always been my objection. I have no objection whatsoever to evolution being taught in terms of 'we suspect this is what happened.'

Pippin4242 wrote:
I will put forward another question: how many people do you know who desperately want to disprove gravity?
None, I don't personally know people who even question the theory of gravity because they aren't aware of evidence that contradicts it, they aren't dissatisfied with it as a theory. If people are seeking to disprove something, I assume it is because they find the theory questionable (that is, unsound) to begin with and object to it being taught as truth.

vison wrote:
Our ancestors were not "lower" than us. What a peculiar idea!
Meaning simpler, less complex (speaking of amoeba, not our great grand-parents).


Top
Profile Quote
yovargas
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:18 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 14774
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 12:11 pm
 
Quote:
Well then, why and how does this debate exist?
The Bible + basic misunderstandings of what the theory does and does not say.
Mostly.


Top
Profile Quote
Cerin
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:24 pm
Thanks to Holby
Offline
 
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat 26 Feb , 2005 4:02 pm
 
Axordil wrote:
But given the evidence, there is no other cogent explanation than the theory as a whole for the current state of life on earth.
I believe what you mean is, there is no other scientific explanation for the current state of life on earth.

Just because there is only one scientific explanation, it does not follow that those who find the explanation unsatisfactory will accept it.

Quote:
This is analagous to seeing a test pilot or two lose control of experimental aircraft and crash and determining from that evidence that aerodynamics is a lie, and that faeries make planes fly.
That is not the way I would classify the objections. I would say it is analagous to a co-worker inviting you to the top of your skyscraper office building to see the airplane he has built out of paper cups and straws, and you declining to be a passenger on its maiden voyage.


Top
Profile Quote
Ara-anna
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:27 pm
Daydream Believer
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5780
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 11:15 pm
Location: Pac Northwest
 
Quote:
We are special only in that we alone (from what we know) are capable of looking at the whole mess and SEEING what our place in it is.
At least thats what we think...we could be wrong.


Thanks for all the fish. :cheers:


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 10 Nov , 2005 6:30 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
I just want to say that I'm married to a scientist, have worked for scientists, and have been around scientists all of my adult life—mostly biologists—and I have never met one who did not accept evolution. There is controversy among scientists as to the details. No reputable biologist that I have ever heard of disputes the essentials.

Many of the scientists I'm talking about are practicing Christians, by the way.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 2 of 22  [ 438 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 522 »
Jump to: