SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: epicure who wrote (41237)6/20/1999 11:58:00 PM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (1) of 108807
 
A point that seems to have been missed in the evolution/creation discussion (though I have not finished reading it yet).

The theory of evolution remains incomplete, but it does carry the weight of derivation from a proper scientific process: observation of phenomena, development of a theory to fit the observations, testing of that theory by the most rigorous available means. The theory of evolution has withstood all the tests that have been derived to challenge it, and is the accepted scientific knowledge of the day; for that reason alone it deserves to be taught as such in schools. If we taught only what can be absolutely proven, we would set science back several centuries. Of course our knowledge will evolve, and we will someday know things that we do not know now. That is no argument for rejecting the best explanations that we have to date.

Evolutionary speciation in nature has not been observed simply because the process requires the passage of long periods of time. Do we deny plate tectonics because we can't see continents moving?

"Creation Science" is an oxymoron. A scientist observes phenomena, looks for a premise to explain them, and tests the premise. If you start with the premise it is not science.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext