Evolution: Science or Philosophy

[TomOfSweden]

Interesting, but the argument lacks a foundation. The physical limits on possiblity would tend to argue agaiiiiinst evolution, not for it. There is a gap in our understanding in the process that has not yet been crossed, and until then all scientist can do is offer conjecture. I have no problem with that, as long as they clearly lable it as such.

You're going to have to walk me through that one, because I don't underdtand your objection.

If you toss a coin into the air randomly and your dimensions is whether or not the coin lands on a flat side or an edge the chances are pretty good you'll get 100% on a flat side no matter how many times you do it. You still toss the coins randomly, but the result isn't random. It's the same situation with DNA. Physical constraints.

Not quite true, the money spent on proving the bible has been far outspent by those trying to disprove it. The one thing that clouds this is that so many people who decided to spend their time and money to disprove the Bible have ended up accepting it that they get counted as the ones trying to prove it.

All research that didn't suport the christian view of the world was illegal in all western countries for over a thousand years. It's an impressive feat of revisionism you're trying to pull off. I doubt even most christians will fall for that one. I'm guessing this little detail just slipped your mind. Christian fundamentalism has been the norm for so much of western history its easy to forget that it was only just recently we as a culture became free of its opression.

If you try to find a grant for your research, most grants are still religious all over the world. Christian scholars in particular are, compared to their secular counterparts still rolling in money.

Prove that statement.

Science can prove evolution. If you deny it, that means that you have another source for your truths of the world. In todays vocabularly we tend to call people who fanatically cling to religous texts above all else as religious fundamentalists. Its only down to linguistic use.

This proves my earlier argument about the ridicule that you dismissed so cavalierly. If someone disagrees with evolution, they are fundamentalists christians, and thus not credible.

According to my molecular biologist friend, (who also has a Phd) there is no controversy in the scientific comunity. All scientists in biology quoted for denying evolution have all been missquoted. The debate on evolution is on minor details about how it works, not if it works. The blunt truth is that the problems found by the religious comunities just don't exist. It's not a question about creationism being ignored unfairly. They don't have a case yet. They lack a theory. Utterly and completely. Creationsim is an idea for a theory. What needs to be done now is for a scientist who believes in ID, to sit down and make a cohesive theory and then test it. This has yet to happen.

I'm just speculating now, but it could also be down to money. The christian market for having their faith confirmed by a scientist is huge.

You mean other than the fact that it has only been seen in a limited ssense of adaptation to environment than in the sense of changing from a simple bacteria to a multi-celluar creature? Or evolving from a fruit fly to a bee? If we cannot see an example in life forms that we have the equivelant data of millions or even billions of generations, how gradual is this process? I know we have only been watching for a couple of centuries, but early experiments have all proven to be faulty, and even the reducing atmosphere that was supposed to provide the perfect environment for producing life is being question by reputable scientists.

My friend answered that one. Evolution just works and plenty of proof exists.

In the beginning God said "Let there be light, and there was light." Why deny it?

He he. That whole book is nothing but metaphors. You can justify and explain anything with the Bible. Anything.