Quote:
Originally posted by Lucern:
At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think this is a case of confusion or general ignorance at best, disengenuity at worst. Darwin didn't invent the idea of evolution. He* came up with the theory of natural selection to explain evolution. For the better part of the last 200 years, scientists were coming up with and refining ways to explain evolution. Evolution shouldn't be on trial. As a scientific point, it's basically a given that species change over time. The scientific debate was always how, not if. I'd be more surpised if evolution was 'proven' untrue than if gravity suddenly gave way and I started floating around. Evolution is much better 'grounded', so to speak, and the turning point was the theory of natural selection posited in 1859 (and it was certainly not the last development). You'll notice, in the article, a lot of talk about life origins, which is an inappropriate way to frame this article. The sciences of evolutionary biology and paleontology can make guesses about life origins, but they actually study how species change over time. The beginning is not the focus, though it is certainly the focus of non-scientific attacks, like intelligent design. Evolution is a biological concept, so pre-biotic conditions like the origin of the universe would be a bit out of its range, right? That's an example of the confusion I'm talking about.
|
Well, I'm willing to bet that most of these poeple don't have a clue what the ToE
really says. If they do, they still prefer their own army of strawmen.
After reading alot of the Evolution/Creationism debate on the net, I'm baffled by the amount of misconceptions that's even possible to have about a simple scientific theory.