wfooshee
Perhaps I did read something you didn't quite say. It sounded like you said you dropped your acceptance of evolution as a valid theory because it can't be proven, or that new evidence might arise to challenge the theory, and that's what I responded to.
There is no shortage of evidence to support the theory of evolution as we understand it today. Indeed, the theory was valid before the discovery of DNA. Hereditary characteristics were observable without an understanding of the molecule that carries that heredity. Being able to compare the DNA of related species confirms many previous observations, perhaps re-arranges others. The correction of errors does not invalidate the entire process; it validates it, makes it more correct, just like your example of electromagnetic radiation. Of course we changed our theories as we learned the physics involved. That's what science is about.
Thanks for saying that. And by that I mean realizing what I had said.
Micro evolution is certainly observable, its just micro and macro are different things. And yes, there is a great deal of evidence that does support macro - I use to argue the exact same arguement you are, almost word for word. Its just there are some still tricky to explain points. If I recall correctly, the orginal idea that things slowly evolved from one form to another. But at some point this looked unlikely with trends they had found in fossils, and thus had to go to the jump effect, where a significant changes happen rapidly. But this would require most of the species to change at the same time, otherwise the few that did change would be excluded and have some troubles as well.
Of course, thats all from a vague corner of my memory, so I am hoping someone can clarify it for me.
wfooshee
As for not being able to prove evolution or Creationism, that's weak. Science is not about proving. (Geometry, on the other hand. . . .
) Science is about matching hypotheses to evidence and repeatable observation, presenting findings to the community for review, and coming up with theories that are supported by the observation.
Damn Geometry and its proofs
This is what I have been trying to get at though. Too many people argue science like it is fact, there is no other option. Could not be any different, and you explained what it is very well.
wfooshee
Creationism, being the notion that the world and universe we know was done up in 6 days, everything just like we see it now, is most definitely absolutely NOT supported by any physical evidence anyone can find. As far as I'm concerned, it IS disproven. The evidence DOES exclude the Creation story as a valid literal history. The only support for it is the faith of believers in the literal word-for-word interpretation of a set of writings that are considered sacred, thus unquestionable. These tales were written by people who had no concept of the things being considered, people who, as I have said before, had an understanding of science equivalent to a cave man's. Their ideas were that we were the supreme earthly life form, the Earth was the center of the Universe, and all of it was made for our plunder. Pretty easy to get believers if that's what you teach. Especially if you teach that such plunder extends to the non-believers around you (for example, the prior occupants of Canaan.)
How familar are you with doctrine and scriptures? Just curious. On a different point, several denominations view the creation differently. While it says it took 6 days, time does not pass the same for God as for us, and so on. Plus we really don't understand how the universe started. Big bang one point, superstring now, and we keep coming up with ideas.
wfooshee
If you teach, instead, that we are an accident of chemistry on an insignificant rock flying around some second-rate star in a remote corner of some galaxy with nothing of interest anywhere else around, well, that gets kind of hard to swallow for people who are used to being master of all they survey. There is not a single group, tribe, nation or family of any size who doesn't believe deep down that they are the Chosen Ones, all others are condemned, and this self-centered arrogance is the root of all the world's troubles. EVERY conflict in history is because somebody thought they were better, more entitled, than somebody else, and it stinks.
This idea is a hard pill to swallow. And yes, conflict is based on someone thinking they are more entitled. Thats a problem with many religions these days, or rather how they are taken as. Jihad is the classic example. Everyone takes it to mean "holy war" but its actual translation is a "religious struggle." Taken by extremist, you get war. But the more scholarly take as an internal struggle of faith, which is commonly taught in many religions.
However, its not fair to try to blame this on religion, which is kinda what it sounds like you are saying. "Science" has been used to justify injustice before. Just look at Social Darwinism.
wfooshee
Getting back to the science side, everything we see in genes, observed heredity, the fossil record, stange animals in small closed environments (Galapagos, Australia, etc,) and similarities in existing species, is accounted for in our present theory of evolution. Missing links are not enough to say the whole thing is bunk, but that seems to be the major objection. "Well, yeah, everything you say fits, as far as it goes, but it's incomplete. I'll stay with my 'wishing-makes-it-so' system, thanks."
And I never said it did make it bunk. And the fact that my DNA probably has more in common with a native to some African country than to my neighbors is always an interesting thing.
Sorry if I made that harder then it should have been. It looks like most all of us agree that 6 days is not definable on our current 24 hour day.
agreed...in the end everything leads to global warming!
