"Rejecting a major theory with a century-and-a-half of observational and experimental evidence behind it in favor of a ludicrous Biblical interpretation"
Its interesting you would use the age of the theory as a logical justification for it, considering you're putting it up against the scriptures.
Even though you chose to put the word ludicrous in front of it, as I understand it most people who have seriously looked into such things have found the historicity of the Bible to be nothing short of remarkable. And while there continues to be many things in the Bible which are difficult to believe, those parts of it that we are capable of proving or disproving have turned out to be amazingly accurate.
Having said that, I wouldn't say that I disbelieve in evolution. I personally don't think its necessarily the great unifying theory that many in science seem to want it to be. However, I do thing it goes a long way towards explaining many of the phenomenon observed in biology. And, furthermore with my current (and admittedly partial) understanding of the Biblical account of creation, I don't think the Bible is necessarily at odds with the theory of evolution.
Hey kids, regardless of how huffy and indignant you get, evolution might still be wrong. No one has yet proved that human kind is descended from the primordial (premorgial, prime meredial, whatever) soup or even from monkeys.
Now evolution has certainly been through the wringer a few more times than ID, so I definitely don't think ID deserves equal time in the classroom. But it seems a little close-minded to just dismiss the possibility of God because his existence can't be proven using our current understanding of the laws of nature.
Now as for this whole notion of 'independent thought': Perhaps as late as the 1920's and 1930's, maybe even the 1950's, supporting evolution could be considered independent thought. But within today's scientific community it is the accepted dogma, and those throwing around the term 'group think' should perhaps engage in a little self-examination. Heck I'm fearful of even writing this after seeing the religious fervor with which supporters of ID are attacked.
Slashdot Mirror
"Rejecting a major theory with a century-and-a-half of observational and experimental evidence behind it in favor of a ludicrous Biblical interpretation"
Its interesting you would use the age of the theory as a logical justification for it, considering you're putting it up against the scriptures.
Even though you chose to put the word ludicrous in front of it, as I understand it most people who have seriously looked into such things have found the historicity of the Bible to be nothing short of remarkable. And while there continues to be many things in the Bible which are difficult to believe, those parts of it that we are capable of proving or disproving have turned out to be amazingly accurate.
Having said that, I wouldn't say that I disbelieve in evolution. I personally don't think its necessarily the great unifying theory that many in science seem to want it to be. However, I do thing it goes a long way towards explaining many of the phenomenon observed in biology. And, furthermore with my current (and admittedly partial) understanding of the Biblical account of creation, I don't think the Bible is necessarily at odds with the theory of evolution.
Hey kids, regardless of how huffy and indignant you get, evolution might still be wrong. No one has yet proved that human kind is descended from the primordial (premorgial, prime meredial, whatever) soup or even from monkeys. Now evolution has certainly been through the wringer a few more times than ID, so I definitely don't think ID deserves equal time in the classroom. But it seems a little close-minded to just dismiss the possibility of God because his existence can't be proven using our current understanding of the laws of nature. Now as for this whole notion of 'independent thought': Perhaps as late as the 1920's and 1930's, maybe even the 1950's, supporting evolution could be considered independent thought. But within today's scientific community it is the accepted dogma, and those throwing around the term 'group think' should perhaps engage in a little self-examination. Heck I'm fearful of even writing this after seeing the religious fervor with which supporters of ID are attacked.