Before this thread turnsugly, here's a pretty girl
to make Freepers smile.
wow. I've never seen macro-evolution change from one species to another. this is big news.
Really.
If that's the case, we should just be able to demonstrate it in a controlled experiment, like we can with gravity.
I really don't understand the loggerheads over the belief in Divine Creation and the Theory of Evolution.
Before this thread turnsWelcome to FreeRepublic.
Very interesting. My pastor says the Bible is fact.
troll no?
Soooooooooooooooooo Impressive.
I realized a lot of those fossilized old farts were old.
I didn't REALIZE that they were THAT OLD! Old as dirt! Around from the beginning. THEY WERE THERE! THEY KNOW! LOL.
Mr. Flicker says that evolution doesn't happen. Well he's a journalist, so I guess he knows everything.
Hm. Flickinger's article isn't really all that good.
Articles like this make me want to pull my hair out, and I'm not even a scientist. First of all, there's no such thing as the "theory" of intelligent design. To say there is suggests a complete lack of knowledge concerning scientific terms.
A scientific theory is a way of describing a process by examining and testing related events. It becomes a theory only when it gains widespread acceptance.
By its definition, a theory cannot become fact, but it's certainly more than conjecture.
The above is a common psalm among religious evolutionites. Another example how they don't understand science at all, in this case basic physics.
Too bad. Human Events used to be a reputable conservative magazine.
" Evolution is no longer a theory. It’s a fact!"
In science, mon cher Monsieur, a theory ends being a theory, when is demonstrated by evidence, a.k.a. FACTS.
So sit back and relax.
You don't have to believe or not FACTS.
The Earth is round, whether you believe it or not.
Dear Biology Prof : Evolution is 'anti Christ' fiction
-God
I was appalled by the sheer stupidity evinced in Christopher Flickinger's August 17 article on Evolution. Having read the article, there is no way I would speak to Flickinger either. Arguing with a fool is pointless. Just to list the obvious problems with the article:
Intelligent Design presents itself as a scientific theory (though it lacks most of the essential attributes of a scientific theory). If it is a scientific theory, one cannot have it both ways, as Flickinger does, and claim that criticism of ID is an attack on religion.
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a moral code. Arguing that we should let natural selection guide our moral choices is like arguing we should push granny downstairs, because gravity demands that objects fall towards the center of the earth. Is the theory of universal gravitation immoral? After all, millions die from gravity related causes every year!
Science classes do indeed include two sides of a debate, where a scientific debate exists. There is no serious scientific debate about evolution. Instead, there is a group of religiously motivated theocrats trying to impose a particular creation myth on science classes.
As for the hilarious contentions that the Bible reveals the existence of subatomic particles and that the earth is round (Isaiah actually says 'the circle of the earth', and the earth is most definitely not circular, it's nearly spherical), they appear to be the product of a hopeful imagination too little versed in scientific principles.
I'm a conservative of long standing; I was campus advisor to the College Republicans here in Nebraska for seven years; and I was a frequent reader of Human Events back in the nineties. It appears to have been transformed from a serious and thoughtful conservative magazine to a vehicle for the random and uneducated thoughts of unschooled religious zealots. That's too bad.
Gerard S. Harbison, Professor of Chemistry, UNL, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA.
gerry@setanta.unl.edu