Good point, and since you would never know if God really did that, it is an irrelevant argument. You are arguing that any creationist supports the idea that God is all powerful and can create things the way He wants to. I think they'd all support that idea.
Widely accepted doesn't mean it is correct. It could be, but it might not be either. It is a theory, in science that means an idea supported by evidence, not an indisputable fact. Many theories are held for long periods of time until other evidence comes along later that leads to a new theory. Sometimes the new evidence disproves the old idea, sometimes it doesn't. But theories are created so the scientific community can compare new evidence to it, then alter the theory as appropriate.
The original question has two parts, 'Is evolution well-supported by evidence AND widely accepted within the scientific community?'. You can harp on the second half all you want, but since evolution is still a theory, and there are other theories out there that do have valid evidence, then it is logical to disagree with the first half of the question and become part of the 48% that/. can look down upon.
Scientists and others can have the same problem that religious folks do. They become so attached to their theories, maybe they spent their life's work researching it, that they can't let go of it and ignore other valid evidence. Our country's science education could benefit more by including other, maybe lesser known or less supported, theories. It would be better for the students to look at the different alternatives and decide for themselves based on the evidence. Much better than showing only evidence to support one theory.
In a non-politically correct world, this would also be a good approach regarding religion. But the schools mainly choose to pretend religion doesn't exist at all.
That's great. But it's still addressing a different question as to whether there is a God at the beginning of all of that 'soup' to say go. If there is a God who created everything, then He is outside of it all. The only way we could 'discover' Him would be for Him to somehow let us know.
Slashdot Mirror
you are right, I think I pulled others comments into my one post as a reply to yours. sorry.
Good point, and since you would never know if God really did that, it is an irrelevant argument. You are arguing that any creationist supports the idea that God is all powerful and can create things the way He wants to. I think they'd all support that idea.
Widely accepted doesn't mean it is correct. It could be, but it might not be either. It is a theory, in science that means an idea supported by evidence, not an indisputable fact. Many theories are held for long periods of time until other evidence comes along later that leads to a new theory. Sometimes the new evidence disproves the old idea, sometimes it doesn't. But theories are created so the scientific community can compare new evidence to it, then alter the theory as appropriate. The original question has two parts, 'Is evolution well-supported by evidence AND widely accepted within the scientific community?'. You can harp on the second half all you want, but since evolution is still a theory, and there are other theories out there that do have valid evidence, then it is logical to disagree with the first half of the question and become part of the 48% that /. can look down upon.
Scientists and others can have the same problem that religious folks do. They become so attached to their theories, maybe they spent their life's work researching it, that they can't let go of it and ignore other valid evidence. Our country's science education could benefit more by including other, maybe lesser known or less supported, theories. It would be better for the students to look at the different alternatives and decide for themselves based on the evidence. Much better than showing only evidence to support one theory.
In a non-politically correct world, this would also be a good approach regarding religion. But the schools mainly choose to pretend religion doesn't exist at all.
That's great. But it's still addressing a different question as to whether there is a God at the beginning of all of that 'soup' to say go. If there is a God who created everything, then He is outside of it all. The only way we could 'discover' Him would be for Him to somehow let us know.
This didn't make microsoft sound nearly evil enough for /.