A Conversation for Discrepancies in the Theory of Evolution - Part I
The Dali Llama Started conversation Sep 1, 2002
Something which is often overlooked in the Evolution/Creation debate is the fact that Charles Darwin's theory is NOT the only or even the first theory of evolution. Lamarck had one a few years earlier, and several other people have other theories. It would be interesting to compare them, but I have'nt been able to get my hands on copies of Lamarck or Kropotkin's books yet.
Researcher 205283 Posted Oct 4, 2002
One of the reasons I am no longer a creationist is that I learned more about evolution. Darwin is merely a historical example of a revolutionary scientist. His only real contribution to modern biology is that the most fit to survive, do survive. All the rest of this "refuting Darwin" is nonsense. To my sensibilities, this demonstrates an interest in convincing people who do not understand the science of ecology or evolution to follow the idea of creationism without regard to the actual state of affairs in science.
Lamarck and others were interesting, but evolution is something that is researched constantly in various ways. It is not a belief system. Creation of the world/Universe/humans by a supernatural intelligence is. The real reason that evolution is "believed" is that it is a testable and verifiable theory that has yet to be refuted by reasonable evidence. When it is, Biology and Organic Chemistry as we know it will be entirely changed. That is the nature of science. Creationism requires the acceptance of an unverifiable (often refutable) belief in an extraterrestrial overlord of the Universe who, with a total disregard for any principle of the functioning of said Universe, built everything out of nothing. Religion is a fine thing, but it is not science. In fact, there is no possibility that one can or should study Chemistry or Physics if a deity or angel can simply reverse all of the principles one is seeking at whim. Science is not anti-religion, but it is necessarily agnostic. This is not to say that scientists cannot have faith, but science itself does not postulate faith in anything but its own method.
Sorry, haven't picked a nickname yet.
Ste Posted Oct 4, 2002
Key: Complain about this post