” The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. “
So is gravity.
The article deserved to be Xed out. Actually, it’s better than this article deserved.
Evolution has become increasingly a dogma even though evidence continues to accumulate that suggests that the existing theory is not sufficient to explain what is being observed. I think that current evolutionary theory is one that purposely confuses microevolution minor adaptations and a normal range of genetic variations with macroevolution which is the total transformation of a creature in form and function. Modern Evolutionary theory does produce a lot of wonderful untestable stories and drawings of ancestors re-imagined from a handful of bones. I believe in adaptation but I do not believe natural selection is the primary driver of exceedingly complex genetic change nor do I believe there is any adequate explanation for the origin of life.
So much of what is accepted evolutionary science is really an illusion crafted to suggest things not supported by empirical data. I believe that current evolutionary theory is vastly oversimplified and would be considered ridiculous if the simple picture was not so appealing as was the classical model of Newtonian physics before it was found to be insufficient.
http://www.morsescode.com/Heavy Weaponry? Give us a break. One of them was a freaking .22 cal pistol!Thursday, April 19, 2007
Here we go again – shooter at Virginia Tech
....
What has changed in our society to cause this epidemic of mass murder at schools?
....
2. Guns: The types of weapons now available were not around when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment into the Bill of Rights. While the right to keep and bear arms is and should remain a basic right, there is nevertheless no logical reason why anyone should be able to walk into a store and buy the types of weapons that the Virginia Tech shooter was able to obtain.
....
What is to be done?
....
2. Guns. Heavy weaponry should be only available to those who have been trained to use them and not to the public at large.
And both .22 and 9mm cal high-cap. semiauto pistols have been available for more than 70 years.
You Gun Grabbers use any excuse to ban those "pocket rockets"
Thank you.
I find it an interesting data point -- one to be placed alongside the data point that 35% of Democrats believe Bush had advanced knowledge of 9/11.
Each party apparently has its "eccentric" wing of base voters, attracting politicians who seek to identify with (or indeed accurately represent) those voters.
It's almost pointless to strike out most of the article. It could still be a stupid piece, but if it is going to be posted it should be easily legible.
Non-secularly, the existence of God would have huge ramifications.
Now, more back on topic, science seems more and more trying to supplant religion (from the Creationist/Christian point of view). No longer is it very common to see reports from scientists stating that things were observed to be or appear this or that way. There is an air of finality and unquestionability that science isn't supposed to have. Religion and science are two subjects, just as mathematics and history are two subjects. And as is the case with all those subjects, they can at times merge, but are two distinct subjects. Similarly, all those subjects in their abstract form are perfect. However, in their unabstract (concrete?) form, you see that subjects can have flaws in them, given the imperfection of human creatures. Astronomers once believed that space was filled with ether, until Newton came up with his theory of gravitation. Common history once held that the existence of Sumer and Troy were myths. Now, those places and civilizations are believed to have indeed existed.
Christianity has an "opt-out." Because Christians believe that God (Who is perfect) gave mankind the Bible, the Bible can be considered perfect. It is taken by faith.
Science doesn't have that option. Indeed, almost by definition, science is supposed to be debated and tested over and over again until things become reliably clear. And yet, today, there are those who refuse to let science (in its concrete, non-abstract form) be questioned, and who all but reject experiments and observations which call into question what are today basic tenets (such as supposedly 65 million year+ organic material from dinosaurs being found in warm [non-icy year round] regions). That is detrimental to the advancement of science, much more so than letting Creationism be accepted as a rival alternative to and along with Macroevolution.
And remember:
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side!"
IMO the controversy over origins is a conflict within Revolutionism between Protestants and Secularists. When I look at the landscape of beliefs through a wide-angle lens where Revolutionism itself is open to question, the origins debate appears to be a preoccupation of Revolutionists. As a Catholic, I’m not especially concerned about the physical mechanisms through which God created the universe. I just know he’s for real and I’m at peace with my inability to understand in totality the one written artifact of the Faith we call the Bible.
Because, like global warming, it's religion passing itself off as science.
Isn't that the very definition of inter-species evolution? Evolving from one species into another? Perhaps the author confused inter- with intra-.
Evolution is definitely a political issue, no matter what else you might call it.
You seem to have little understanding of the nature and role of a scientific "theory". In science a theory is a well developed explanatory model for which there is evidence. If there isn't evidence then it is at best a failed theory, i.e. a "theory" only in the historical sense; or it is a yet-to-be-tested theory, i.e. a "theory" only in future prospect or potential.
IOW your second and third sentences contradict your first sentence. If there is, as you declare, "not a shred of evidence" for evolution then it cannot be a (current, active) scientific theory. Which, however, it obviously is.
He could have been more specific.
Was Chris speaking of bio evolution or Christian evolution?
It seems strange to me that there is almost never discussion of the evolution of Christianity. The constant change is remarkably similar to that of the survival of the fittist changes in Darwinian bio evolution.