You think you know more about evolutionary science than William Provine and Richard Dawkins. They're the experts on the subject, though
I was commenting on their meanders into philosophy.
No, it should be wrong to promote atheism in taxpayer funded science classrooms. It isn't.
On this we agree. However, I remember many classes in college where the Profs philosophical views on issues not related directly to the class where expressed. For example, some of my Libertarian business class Profs had much to say on many subjects not directly related to the business subjects. They liked to stray into Sociology for example. So the question is one in general, should teachers share their philosophies with their students, especially when their views are against the generally accepted views of the discipline. I actually think it is fine, provided the teacher is forthright in stating this.
No, first Id doesn't deal with the origin of life.
Uh?
No, the one who did that was Darwin
pandasthumb.org
Nicolaus Copernicus - "My goal is to find the truth in God's majestic creation." (Not only was he searching for truth,
he wasn't a materialist. He used the "G" word and he was, gasp, a creationist. So he must not have been a scientist. Heh.)
Thanks for making my point. If he had been a materialist, he would have known better than to say what he said.
Many scientists today are confused on the issue as well. So what?
I think you're the only one with that idea about common descent. Common descent and evolution are always associated. BTW I have no problem with common descent. In fact, I consider it evidence for divine intervention in re. to the origin of life.
What the heck? Common descent is what the whole ID arguement with evolution is about. Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. That is called abiogenesis. Different field. Darwins theory is about the diversity of life, nots its origin. If you have no problem with common descent, then you just stated you have no problem with evolution. You sound like a theistic evolutionist.
I think you are wrong - the coelacanth is unchanged from what the species was hundreds of millions of years ago. That's what made it newsworthy.
No, I'm quite correct. They are not even placed in the same family. The modern coelacanth is in the family Latimeriidae. The fossil coelacanths are in the family Coelacanthidae. They have structural differences. AFAIK, their are no fossil examples of the modern one, and no living ones of the fossil version. Of course, creationist sites will tell a different story...
There are many ancient fossils which have some living creatures quite similar, especially the marine ones and reptiles. Croc's and alligators come to mind. Mammals are quite different in that regard. |
