The global warming faithful have begun to re-define the term to mean anything they say it means, so any weather anomaly can be said (by them) to be caused by anthropogenic activity.
In the same way, the evolution zealots have begun to re-define the term to mean anything they say it means, so any change or adaptation can be said (by them) to be evolution. No one disputes that adaption takes place, that's part of The Design, but the unproven part is whether or not one species evolves into a completely different species. The religion of evolution tries to disingenuously equate adaption with evolution, and have suckered many uninformed into believing that they are equal.
Global warming is a separate issue. No one doubts that the climate changes. The issue there is that socialist ideologues saw there an opportunity to try to mash socialism down our throats by trying to link human activity to natural climate change. Because politicians direct money to anthropogenic climate change research rather than to other types of research, some scientists (who should know better) started throwing the phrase "because of climate change" as a cause of just about every observation. In some cases, they also discuss what the actual causes might be; in other cases, they don't even discuss potential causes. I've seen scientists who do this at conferences and read it in many scientific papers. Different issue, different background.
OTOH, the theory of evolution is based in scientific observation, and revised as new information is learned. As far as I can tell, it is apolitical. Scientists use it just as one would expect scientists to use any scientific theory.
Science =/= religion.
I beg to differ. My point is that both should be based on science, but have devolved into religions, where science is secondary to one's beliefs, and scientific fact is therefore distorted and misrepresented.
OTOH, the theory of evolution is based in scientific observation, and revised as new information is learned. As far as I can tell, it is apolitical. Scientists use it just as one would expect scientists to use any scientific theory.
I must ask, then, what you mean by evolution. If you mean that life adapts, yes, that is scientific, observed, irrefutable fact. If you mean that all life "evolved" from nothingness into a single cell, and then into the diversity we observe, that is not based on scientific observation because it has not and cannot be observed. If you are interested in knowing the facts, you might want to research:
- why Darwin "invented" the theory of evolution
- the fact that there has always been a dissident faction of highly distinguished scientists, of impeccable credentials and no religious motivations, who have declined to concede that evolution has been proven
- why the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support evolution (there is still "the missing link", in fact, they're all missing)
Let me give you a test, but I'll provide the answers.
The human genome project has shown that man is 90%-99% chimpanzee - our closest "relative" (e.g., we share 90%-99% of the same DNA - let's assume 95% for the sake of this discussion).
Now, let's examine the rest of the story (answers follow, but don't cheat).
1. How many nucleotides are in the human genome?
2. So, then, how many nucleotides are different in the human genome versus that of a chimpanzee (hint: 95% are the same)?
3. How many DNA changes per generation are considered non-lethal?
4. How many years would it take (to make the math easy, let's assume a generation is 50 years) for a chimpanzee to evolve into a human if the changes were in the exact right sequence and there were no "dead ends"?
5. How many years ago did evolved man supposedly "branch off" from chimpanzees?
6. Using this analysis, has there been enough time for man to "evolve" from chimpanzees? Note: Answer not provided - you have to be smart enough to answer this one on your own.
7. How many fossil records show the 25 million year "evolution" of chimpanzees into man (again, you'll have to research this one on your own - hopefully you do so objectively).
8. Finally, to see if you're paying attention: 50% of our DNA is the same as a banana - why aren't we considered half banana and to have "evolved" from a banana (although I do know some whose intelligent matches that of a banana, so maybe we are and did)???
Answers
1. 3 billion
2. 120 million
3. Commonly accepted as 3, but let's use 4 to make the math easier
4. 1.875 billion years
5. 25 million (that's a gap of only 1.85 billion years - not even close enough for government work)
oh, okay then, I guess it is a good thing the government does not direct any money at evolution - right?!
Let’s see - evolution is generally promoting godlessness and ever since the scopes monkey trial the government has continually and increasingly promoted godlessness.
If modern physics and cosmology are as 'apolitical' as this site indicates, the current definition of "apolitical" doesn't lend much support for objectivity in 'evolution'.
"Natural Philosophy" is the name by which "physics" was known in the time of Isaac Newton, and well into the 19th century. We return to it mainly in order to emphasize that the more profound and circumspect approach to nature during those years is needed once again. We seek renewed respect for philosophy, especially for logic; and also for the everyday application of reason and of respect for evidence known as common sense -- which should be considered a foundation for, rather than a contrast to, genuine science."
"Modern physics regularly disdains both logic and common sense, and prefers interpretations of evidence favoring the bizarre and irrational. The resulting theories reflect the real world much less than they do the special biases of the interpreters--as suggested by the critical movement of constructivism, based largely on the thought of Thomas Kuhn. Other and more logical interpretations of all the same evidence and applications (even of nuclear energy) alleged to confirm special relativity, etc., are quite possible."
"Reigning paradigms in physics and cosmology have for many decades been protected from open challenge by extreme intolerance, excluding debate about the most crucial problems from major journals and meetings."
I am shocked, shocked at the level of intolerance among 'scientists'. Anybody see any creationists at this site?
Anybody studied anything by Karl Popper lately?