Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:43:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1069 times
|
| |
|
|
SRC wrote:
>
> The theory of evolution is absurd
Would you mind if I clarified something here, as much for myself as anyone else?
There frequently seems to be confusion between Evolution and the Theory of
Evolution. Evolution, that is, the apparently directed or emergent change of
species over time, without "Theory of" prefixed to it, is in a fact a process
that has been demonstrated and is demonstratable. The evidence is all around you;
this is why antibiotic resistant "superbugs" come into being, for example. See
also:
http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/paper_to_html/selection.html#EVID
The Theory of Evolution is exactly that; a theory as to why the process of
evolution occurs, which I believe Darwin claimed to be due to natural selection
within a species. In this regard, it is entirely plausable to accept that
evolution occurs whilst simultaneousy rejecting Darwin's theory. Darwin may be
wrong, yet this does not in itself invalidate evolution as a process; if Darwin
was indeed incorrect, all it would suggest is that his understanding of the
process was wrong, not that the process itself does not occur.
Perhaps an analogy would help; just as with evolution, one can have gravity, the
physical phenomenon, and a theory of gravity. You can argue all you like about
the existence of gravity, but it is trivial to prove that it exists. Those who
deny its existence tend not to be around to follow through on their initial
point (through natural selection perhaps? :-). However, a theory of gravity
could be correct, partially correct, or entirely wrong.
In other words, I can say to a physicist, "Sir, your theory of gravity is
complete bumkum", yet no matter how much I deny his theory, it still does not
permit me to walk off the edge of cliffs without falling.
Jennifer Clark
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jennifer Clark writes: (...) VERY important distinction, and one that I touched on a little, I think, but not very much... And on that note-- Steve, could you be a little (a lot, really) more specific on which you (...) (23 years ago, 12-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| Ok, I've been rather busy as of late, so back to the debate... :) (...) Ok. So we agree now? That our definitions of 'prove' differ? Right? (...) Aha!, would say I, are not testimonials subject to personal feelings or prejudices? Can you fully trust (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
