h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If someone wants to disprove the theory of evolution, they are going to do a much, much better job of it then the creationists have done so far. What is needed is a *systematic* rebuttal of the evidence from the scientific fields of genetics, geology, palaeontology, comparative anatomy, embryology, evolutionary theory, taxonomy, biochemistry, genomics and more. Creationism has not even slightly tackled this "convergence of evidence", and I suspect that they don't even know it is there (seeing as they keep on trying to attack Darwin, a person who has been dead for quite a while now) .

All that the religious fundamentalists claim is a few small isolated examples in one or two fields, which, inevitably, are a result of either a total lack of understanding for the science in question or a deliberate attempt to misinform the debate as to gain an upper hand. They also offer Irreducible Complexity (born out of a misunderstanding of biology) and the Anthromorphic Principle (which states that God fated man to be alive - a ridiculous and arrogent assumtion that is basically the old "mysterious ways" answer).

Creationism offers nothing in the way of science. It has not once "disproved" any single item in evolutionary theory.

As said by myself and Madent in another thread, this whole debate is a huge, embarrasing cock up on behalf of the fundamentalists. Science is all about *HOW* things happen. Religion is about *WHY*. Creationism seems to think that their faith covers both because they take an ancient text completely, utterly, no-brain, totally literally (ever play "Chinese whispers" people?). Science on the other hand leaves the "whys" to religion and is not interested.

I propose that this debate has been well and truly won by the evolution side.

Ste

I have to disagree, Ste. You might just as well say "anti-racists have won the argument".

The argument, to my mind, is NOT whether Creationism is correct or not (science wins that so conclusively it's not even worth arguing about, I think).

The REAL argument, and the one you can never sit back and say "we've won", is the argument for keeping Creationism in Religious Studies classes and OUT of the science classes. The argument is only of any real importance where it concerns the education of children. Creationists who want their beliefs taught as science may never go away. So we'll never "win". Science will just have to keep patiently explaining it's position, over and over again, in the face of all objections, until religion passes the way of belief in fairies.

Patience...

H.

"The argument, to my mind, is NOT whether Creationism is correct or not". That was actually what I was referring to . But I get your point. I'm not saying that science should retire, as that would be a dangerous thing. I was pointing out the blindingly obvious to sum up my last post.

"...until religion passes the way of belief in fairies". Behave H , there's nothing wrong with religion per se. It all boils down to just a few folk who think the bible is a real alternative to modern evolutionary biology.

I agree that the most salient point is the education of children, something perhaps this project could have touched more upon...

Ste