Slashdot Mirror
Putting Anti-Evolution Candidates On the Spot
hmccabe writes "YouTube is currently taking submissions for their next debate, in which the Republican candidates will answer questions. This seems like a good opportunity to challenge those candidates who say they do not believe in evolution. But since I am not an expert in the subject, I would be interested in how you all feel the question should be presented. For my own part, I think it is important to present the overwhelming body of evidence on the subject as incontrovertible fact, much the same way DNA evidence is presented during a criminal trial, and ask why the candidate feels they can pick and choose what facts they believe in. Moreover, I am wary of coming across like Christopher Hitchins, so vitriolic the candidate will defend themselves rather than answer the question. Perhaps the most important aspect of posing the question is to inform the viewers who watch the debate that this is really not a matter of opinion, but of science. So my question is: 'Hey geneticists, have you considered addressing evolution in the YouTube debates? Can you do it in 30 seconds?'"
Please, differentiate between Natural Selection and Evolution. Natural Selection is the intuitively appealing and frankly obvious idea that if in a meaningful and important comparison of ability, something scores higher then something else, that something else is going to die off (cludgy and inaccurate definition, sorry). This is easy to prove and potentially dis-prove. Easy to dis-prove because you can just pull up 2 species, or 2 companies, or 2 countries, or 2 anything for that matter, compare them on one of the meaningful parameters (species: reproductive ablity, companies: productivity + net revenue/profits/valuation cang over time etc. for countries... something else entirely) and see if the better one really is becoming more influential and spreading (yes it is.)
Evolution is the non-intuitive and non-disprovableidea that everything in current life started from the elementry chemicals and worked its way up through natural selection.
Why doesn't God just show Himself? Everyone's so intent on defending or denying the all powerful creator when He could just beam Himself onto everyone's computer screen and tell up plainly whether or not He really exists. Surely any entity with the power to create the heavens and the earth can do this - or provide some similar kind of revelation.
Logically then it follows that if God is all powerful, He either:
1. Doesn't exist
2. Exists but doesn't really care if we know about it