Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Coyoteman
It is a scientific theory, and there is plenty of evidence to support it. The resistant strains of tuberculosis and staphylococcus aureus demonstrate evolution clearly. We can point to the antibiotics that killed off the original strains and manifested the mutated strains. We can even put a timeline on it. We know when the drugs were put into use and we know when the mutated strains were observed.

But The Origin of Species is exactly that - the origin of species. Darwin was not talking about the origin of life, he was observing how living things developed different physical appearances in response to environmental changes. Once he pointed it out, it was obvious.

It was never intended to explain the origin of life on earth, and it doesn’t. It doesn’t explain how lightning strikes or volcanic plumes might have reacted the right elements to form RNA precursors, and it doesn’t explain how those might become something that can have a cellular structure, find nutrients, and reproduce.

Instead, it’s just taken as dogma that this happened. Creation science was just silly. The Bible says it is to be taken on faith, so claiming that science proves it contradicts the nature of the Christianity. ID is another issue. The origin of life is unanswerable, at least to us, and the origin of the universe is unanswerable based on everything we know about physics.

It seems like this teacher is honestly appraising the situation and listing what we know and what we don’t know. Both sides have spent years saying we know it all and anyone who doesn’t agree with us is wrong. Good on him.

28 posted on 07/13/2007 8:35:09 PM PDT by sig226 (Every time I hit spell check, the fishies got all messed up. 'Bye fishies . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: sig226
I agree with virtually everything you say.

It seems like this teacher is honestly appraising the situation and listing what we know and what we don’t know. Both sides have spent years saying we know it all and anyone who doesn’t agree with us is wrong. Good on him.

Or her.

I disagree that science says it knows it all.

I thing the problem we are seeing is that science deals with a particular kind of evidence, and scientists do not react well to those religious fundamentalists who approach the subject with religious belief and a "certain knowledge" that science is all wrong.

We see this particularly in the evolutionary sciences, where some religious beliefs are unalterable opposed to the findings of science.

Are we to treat their beliefs as scientific evidence? What would you have us do?

30 posted on 07/13/2007 8:50:06 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson