Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
StealthRolex wrote: »Don't forget that the Big Bang was invented by a Catholic priest.
Don't forget that Creationists hate Lemaître, going so far as to dismiss him as " practical atheist" Shows what happens when you don't toe the "party line"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/03/07/feedback-big-bang
Nothing in science is ever proven but the effects of dark matter have been observed and studied in a scientific fashion. God hasn't.0 -
... whatever!!!Could I point out that I was responding to wolfbanes interpretation of your statement.
... the whole Materialisic Evolution 'gig' is basically a childish and nieve idea!!Could I also ask why you continue to use childish terms for accepted scientific theory ?
... and my statement about frogs (never) turning into princes neatly summarises all that is wrong with the Theory of Evolution!!!!
CSI is an observable fact of life. All genetic information is observed to be COMPLEX and SPECIFIED and INFORMATION.CSI has been disproven countless times. It is not science, it is nonsense.
Stop denying the obvious. The real issue for Materialists isn't the undoubted existence of CSI ... the challenge is to describe a plausible non-intelligently directed means for its production ... and so far they have failed miserably in doing so!!!0 -
... Evolution within Kinds using pre-existing CSI is a fact and a theory.No, it is not.
We don't accept things because we want to, we don't accept whatever 'feels' right to us. We don't accept something because of religious doctrine. We accept the evidence, the facts.
Evolution is a fact and it is a theory.
Evolution from Pondkind to Mankind is a 'pipe dream' ... and the evolution of frogs into princes is a 'fairystory'!!!
:eek::);):Dmonosharp wrote:Organisms change over successive generations.
YES
All living organisms alive today have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool).
NO
Supported by ;
Evidence from genetics
Evidence from paleontology
Evidence from comparative anatomy
Evidence from geographical distribution
Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance
Evidence from studies of complex iteration
Evidence from observed speciation
ALL THE ABOVE PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF A COMMON CREATOR - AND NOT A COMMON ANCESTOR
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. - Stephen J. Gould
SO HE ADMITS THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE MECHANISM - AND NO PLAUSIBLE EVIDENCE - BUT HE STILL BELIEVES IT STILL HAPPENED ... THIS IS CALLED FAITH ... AND IT CERTAINLY ISN'T SCIENCE!!!
Abiogenesis is a general umbrella term for a number of competing hypothesis' which try to explain the origin of life. None of which have anywhere close to the amount of evidence Evolution has.
SO THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION AND ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR ABIOGENESIS!!!
I don't accept abiogenesis as fact because it doesn't have enough evidence to support it (yet). I still view it as the best attempt to explain the origin of life that we have today but if new evidence arrived tomorrow that completely debunked it I would have absolutely no problem discarding it.
ABIOGENESIS IS A LOAD OF WISHFUL THINKING BY MATERIALISTS ... JUST LIKE PONDKIND TO MANKIND EVOLUTION IS MYTH!!!0 -
.Instant creation is spontaneous. I've no issue with you calling your theory spontaneous creation.
Creation is by definition the appliance of intelligence ... and it therefore isn't a spontaneous phenomenon
But calling evolution "spontaneous" is just you once again misrepresenting what the theory says because it scares you so much and you would rather pretend it said something it doesn't so you don't have to face the truth of the fact of evolution.
I am not in the least 'scared' by Evolution ... like I have repeatedly said some forms of Evolution happen ... but the only place where frogs evolve into princes is in fairyland!!!
Evolution is no more spontaneous than ice melting.
... so you believe that your brain is no more sophisticated than a big lump of ice???0 -
... The Big Bang is another load of Evolutionist wishful thinking!!!:)StealthRolex wrote: »Don't forget that the Big Bang was invented by a Catholic priest. Not sure if he was under instruction from the Vatican at the time to do so - I doubt it - but it is amusing to see so many who argue against creation and the existence of God standing on the shoulders of Catholic giants in pursuit of their claims.
Also the Big Bang theory relies heavily on strange phenomenon such as Dark matter, Dark energy and Dark flow - things that like God cannot be proven to exist.0 -
Advertisement
-
... we don't hate anybody ... we just love and pray for the lost!!!Don't forget that Creationists hate Lemaître, going so far as to dismiss him as " practical atheist" Shows what happens when you don't toe the "party line"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/03/07/feedback-big-bang
Nothing in science is ever proven but the effects of dark matter have been observed and studied in a scientific fashion. God hasn't.0 -
I am not in the least 'scared' by Evolution ... like I have repeatedly said some forms of Evolution happen ... but the only place where frogs evolve into princes is in fairyland!!!
You seem terrified of the truth of evolution, devoting large amount of time to bizarre jokes and even more bizarre misrepresentations of the theory in an effort to hang on to the sliver of deniable.
What exactly is it about evolution that you are so scared of that you can't face up to the reality of it?
... so you believe that your brain is no more sophisticated than a big lump of ice???
Sophistication has nothing to do with spontaneity.
I believe my brain operates under the same chemical laws as everything else.0 -
There is nothing about Evolution that I am scared of ... but I know why you are in such denial over Creation ... and it is the fact that Creation proves the reality that God exists!!!I am not in the least 'scared' by Evolution ... like I have repeatedly said some forms of Evolution happen ... but the only place where frogs evolve into princes is in fairyland!!!
You seem terrified of the truth of evolution, devoting large amount of time to bizarre jokes and even more bizarre misrepresentations of the theory in an effort to hang on to the sliver of deniable.
What exactly is it about evolution that you are so scared of that you can't face up to the reality of it?
... the operation of the Brain uses physical and chemical laws ... the real issue is how the CSI that produces and controls the Human Brain originated!!!Originally Posted by J C
... so you believe that your brain is no more sophisticated than a big lump of ice???
Wicknight
Sophistication has nothing to do with spontaneity.
I believe my brain operates under the same chemical laws as everything else.0 -
There is nothing about Evolution that I am scared of
Of course there is, you are forced to misrepresent it to stop you facing up to the truth because you know the actual theory is a fact and, for some reason, you can't deal with this.... the operation of the Brain uses physical and chemical laws
Which means it is not spontaneous.0 -
CSI is an observable fact of life. All genetic information is observed to be COMPLEX and SPECIFIED and INFORMATION.
I study pattern recognition and information theory. Funny how noone, including Dembski has shown it to be of any use in any field whatsoever.wikipedia wrote:The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, complexity theory, or biology.
You've been corrected on this numerous times. CSI is a nonsense concept created to try to promote nonsense.0 -
Advertisement
-
Organisms change over successive generations.
YES
All living organisms alive today have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool).
NO
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution/evolution.htm
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/categories/index/genome/evolution.phpSupported by ;
Evidence from genetics
Evidence from paleontology
Evidence from comparative anatomy
Evidence from geographical distribution
Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance
Evidence from studies of complex iteration
Evidence from observed speciation
ALL THE ABOVE PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF A COMMON CREATOR - AND NOT A COMMON ANCESTOR
Not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the above points to a creator of any kind. All of the evidence points to a common ancestor.Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. - Stephen J. Gould
SO HE ADMITS THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE MECHANISM - AND NO PLAUSIBLE EVIDENCE - BUT HE STILL BELIEVES IT STILL HAPPENED ... THIS IS CALLED FAITH ... AND IT CERTAINLY ISN'T SCIENCE!!!
He just talked about natural selection and/or any other mechanism to account for the fact of evolution which is observable and the fact of common ancestry which is supported by mountains of observable evidence.
Yet again JC has failed to provide a single answer to anything put to him. How many years on this thread has he consistently failed to answer anyones questions ?0 -
... you are the ones in denial of the reality that life was Created ... and therefore a Creator God exists to whom you must give an account of your lives!!!Originally Posted by J C
There is nothing about Evolution that I am scared of
Wicknight
Of course there is, you are forced to misrepresent it to stop you facing up to the truth because you know the actual theory is a fact and, for some reason, you can't deal with this.
... there is no need to be scared ... once you are Saved ... and every reason to be apprehensive if you are not!!!
The operation and the origin of the Brain are both non-spontaneous ... the CSI for the brain was interlligently designed and created ... and the brain operates by the appliance of immutable physical and chemical laws ... that were themselves also created by God.Originally Posted by J C
... the operation of the Brain uses physical and chemical laws
Wicknight
Which means it is not spontaneous.
Stop shooting yourself in the foot ... I feel your pain every time I have to chastise you for your childish pontifications!!!:D0 -
... there is none so blind as s/he who will not see!!!I study pattern recognition and information theory. Funny how noone, including Dembski has shown it to be of any use in any field whatsoever.
CSI is an observable fact of life. All genetic information is observed to be COMPLEX and SPECIFIED and INFORMATION.You've been corrected on this numerous times. CSI is a nonsense concept created to try to promote nonsense.
Stop denying the obvious. The real issue for Materialists isn't the undoubted existence of CSI ... the challenge is for Materialists to describe a plausible non-intelligently directed means for its production ... and so far they have failed miserably!!!
... and because no plausible mechanism for the non-intelligently directed production of CSI exists (which isn't surprising because it was intelligently created by God) the Materialists simply deny that Genetic Information is Complex, Specified and Information.
The mental contortion required to convince yourself and others of this obvious error are an amazing sight to behold.
Stop shooting the messenger ... and denying that something as obvious as Complex Specified Genetic Information exists!!!0 -
-
...The evidence all points to a Common Designer and the truth of the BibleThe Scientific Case for Common Descent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution/evolution.htm
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/categories/index/genome/evolution.php
Not a single piece of evidence anywhere in the above points to a creator of any kind. All of the evidence points to a common ancestor.
For example, I just took the last link above :-
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/categories/index/genome/evolution.php
... and than I took the following link:-
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_02/genetic_variation.shtml
... and there I read the following first two paragraphs:-
"Researchers have analyzed regions of the human genome in an ethnically diverse population and found essentially the same groups of single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs, in most individuals. These groups of genetic variation—called haplotype blocks—have been passed down like heirlooms through successive generations from a common and small number of ancestors, according to the researchers.
"When you look at the actual gene sequences, there are only a few ancestors that have given rise to the whole population," says David Altshuler, who led the study at the Whitehead/MIT Center for Genome Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The research is part of a larger project that aims to build a haplotype map of the human genome."
... the reason why we find essentially the same groups of single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs, in all Human Beings is because we are all descended from two parents (Adam and Eve) ... and the reason why there are only a few ancestors that have given rise to the whole Human population today is because there was a 'genetic bottleneck' after Noahs Flood ... and we are all descended from the 8 members of Noah's family!!!
... I have comprehensively and repeatedly almost ad nauseum answered all of your questions ... but you are in such a state of denial, that you are refusing to recognise the reality that is staring you in the face ... the fact that God exists ... and instead you prefer to cling to the ridiculous idea that non-intelligently directed processes can evolve frogs into princes and Muck into Man ... using nothing except time and genetic mistakes!!!:eek:He just talked about natural selection and/or any other mechanism to account for the fact of evolution which is observable and the fact of common ancestry which is supported by mountains of observable evidence.
Yet again JC has failed to provide a single answer to anything put to him. How many years on this thread has he consistently failed to answer anyones questions ?0 -
... how very cryptic!!:DThe Mad Hatter wrote: »Five in October.
... just like the rest of Evolutionism actually.
... come into the light ... and leave the darkness and denial of Evolutionism behind you!!!:eek::):D0 -
-
Nothing in science is ever proven but the effects of dark matter have been observed and studied in a scientific fashion. God hasn't.
It's all theoretical and the observations have been made to fit with the theory just as Dark Matter was invented to make the Big Bang model work. It is nothing more than scientific guesswork at best. You'll probably disagree but I don't care.
What I want to know is why did the Big Bang happen, what caused it and what was there before the Big bang?0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »It's all theoretical and the observations have been made to fit with the theory just as Dark Matter was invented to make the Big Bang model work.
Firstly everything in science is theoretical, that is the point.
Secondly dark matter isn't a theory, it is a place holder term for an observation. No one has a clue what dark matter actually is, or even if it is matter. "Dark matter" is just a place holder term, along with "dark energy", to describe an observed gravitational effect.
No one is making the model work. The model doesn't work to a level of accuracy necessary to describe the observations attributed to dark matter and people are trying to find out why.
If you want to use "God" simply to mean some unknown and un-described force that produces an observed phenomena go ahead. The problems start when you guys attribute properties and stories to him that you can't back up.StealthRolex wrote: »What I want to know is why did the Big Bang happen, what caused it and what was there before the Big bang?
I imagine you actually don't want to know that, you simply want a comforting answer. If you wanted to know you certainly wouldn't subscribe to a world religion since these are beyond guess work and explain very little even before you get to the problem of having no idea if it is true or not.0 -
I imagine you actually don't want to know that, you simply want a comforting answer. If you wanted to know you certainly wouldn't subscribe to a world religion since these are beyond guess work and explain very little even before you get to the problem of having no idea if it is true or not.
Casting aspertions and displaying complete ignorance of the work of mainstream scientists who also happen to subscribe to a world religion not to mention disparaging the amount of support scientists receive from the worlds biggest Church. I want nothing more to do with you. Good bye.0 -
Advertisement
-
StealthRolex wrote: »Casting aspertions and displaying complete ignorance of the work of mainstream scientists who also happen to subscribe to a world religion not to mention disparaging the amount of support scientists receive from the worlds biggest Church. I want nothing more to do with you. Good bye.
I didn't say anything about main stream scientists. I'm talking about you, and basing my judgement on your previous posts. After the ignorance displayed in your posts trying to associate yourself with scientists is, frankly, silly.0 -
...like I have already said the Big Bang is just wishful thinking on the part of Assorted Materialists and their 'fellow travellers'!!!:):DFirstly everything in science is theoretical, that is the point.
Secondly dark matter isn't a theory, it is a place holder term for an observation. No one has a clue what dark matter actually is, or even if it is matter. "Dark matter" is just a place holder term, along with "dark energy", to describe an observed gravitational effect.
No one is making the model work. The model doesn't work to a level of accuracy necessary to describe the observations attributed to dark matter and people are trying to find out why.
If you want to use "God" simply to mean some unknown and un-described force that produces an observed phenomena go ahead. The problems start when you guys attribute properties and stories to him that you can't back up.
I imagine you actually don't want to know that, you simply want a comforting answer. If you wanted to know you certainly wouldn't subscribe to a world religion since these are beyond guess work and explain very little even before you get to the problem of having no idea if it is true or not.
... and the reason that the Big Bang model doesn't work is because it never happened ... the Universe and all life therein was Created by a loving God who wants to Save you from yourself!!!:D0 -
... to paraphrase Groucho Marx ... you should never leave in a huff ... always leave in a minute and a huff ... and if you don't leave in a minute and a huff ... you should leave in a taxi !!!:eek::P:)StealthRolex wrote: »Casting aspertions and displaying complete ignorance of the work of mainstream scientists who also happen to subscribe to a world religion not to mention disparaging the amount of support scientists receive from the worlds biggest Church. I want nothing more to do with you. Good bye.0 -
... leave the man alone ... and try picking on someone bigger than you ... like me!!!!:eek::):DI didn't say anything about main stream scientists. I'm talking about you, and basing my judgement on your previous posts. After the ignorance displayed in your posts trying to associate yourself with scientists is, frankly, silly.0 -
... and continuing our education series for Evolutionists ... here are some more quotes from an Evolutionist for Evolutionists:-
All quotes are from Dr Michael Ruse Editor of the Cambridge University Press Series in the Philosophy of Biology :-
I think that philosophically that one should be sensitive to what I think history shows, namely, that evolution, just as much as religion -- or at least, leave "just as much," let me leave that phrase -- evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. I guess we all knew that, but I think that we're all much more sensitive to these facts now. And I think that the way to deal with creationism, but the way to deal with evolution also, is not to deny these facts, but to recognize them, and to see where we can go, as we move on from there. Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993 †
... in this quote Dr Ruse freely admits that Evolutionism and Creationism are both religious positions!!
... it is also a timely warning to the Evolutionists on this thread to not deny the facts in relation to Creation, but to recognize them, and then see where we can go from here!!!!
I think it's incumbent upon us who take this particular creationism - evolution debate seriously, to be sensitive to these facts, and not simply put our heads in the sand, and say, well, if we take this sort of stuff seriously, we're in deep trouble. Perhaps we are. But I don't think that the solution is just by simply ignoring them. Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993 †
... I think that he is correct that Evolutionism is indeed in deep trouble ... because the latest scientific advances are all supporting the Creation Hypothesis ... while Materialistic Evolution has been effectively proven to be scientifically and logically invalid.
It is probably because I do have an intensely religious nature – using this term in a secular sense, as one might apply it to other nonbelievers like Thomas Henry Huxley -- that I was attracted toward evolution. Speaking in an entirely secular manner, I do not believe that people come to evolution by chance. From Herbert Spencer (1892) to Edward O. Wilson (1978), it has functioned as a kind of Weltanschauung, a world picture which gives meaning to life. It is something that acts as a foundation for the big questions which we humans face. Yet, in those early years, this was not apparent to me -- at least, it was not a matter of great interest to me. Zygon March 1994 p.26 †
... Dr Ruse admits that, as a Materialistic Evolutionist, he has an intensely religious and secular nature!!!
Indeed, some might even point to the fact that they themselves have tried to produce an ideologically acceptable evolutionism. I think, for example, of the work of the Marxist biologists Richard Lewontin and Richard Levins. By their own admission, they have openly attempted to put their philosophy in to their science, explicitly endorsing holistic approaches, trying to analyse nature in a hierarchical manner, standing against the 'reductionism' which is the mark of so much of modern science. Evolutionary Naturalism (1995) p. 212
Dr Ruse admits above that Evolutionists have openly put their philosophy into their science!!!
... and below he goes as far a calling Evolutionism "a full-fledged alternative to Christianity" ... makes one wonder why some Christians are promoting this full-fledged alternative to Christianity to their children and within their churches!!!
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post May 13, 2000 †0 -
-
Dr Ruse is a Philosopher of (Evolutionary) Biology and he is a Fellow of both the Royal Society of Canada and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.Sorry, we prefer to get our education from journals on evolutionary biology.
He regularly debates with ID proponents and he was a key witness for the plaintiff in the 1981 test case (McLean v. Arkansas) of the state law permitting the teaching of Creation Science in the Arkansas school system.
... he is one of you guys!!!!:)
... but he much more open-minded!!!!!!:D
... and that is why his quotes are so devastating!!!:eek:
... and here is a real 'killer' for those who believe that life is just one big accident:-
0 -
Dr Ruse is a Philosopher of (Evolutionary) Biology and he is a Fellow of both the Royal Society of Canada and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Yeah but you aren't.
And based on your rather blatant quote mining and misrepresentation of scientist's positions in the past excuse us if we don't take your word for it when you claim to present an accurate representation of what they meant. :rolleyes:
Again you try so hard to fight against what you know is true. Why so scared?0 -
... we have been over this before ... and I was shown to be presenting accurate quotes of what these guys have to say.Yeah but you aren't.
And based on your rather blatant quote mining and misrepresentation of scientist's positions in the past excuse us if we don't take your word for it when you claim to present an accurate representation of what they meant. :rolleyes:
For example, the following quote really does say what Dr Ruse meant ... and it did appear in the National Post May 13, 2000
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post May 13, 2000 †
... you're the guys 'on the run' and in the throes of denial.Again you try so hard to fight against what you know is true. Why so scared?
I am not in the least 'scared' ... I'm so confident of my position that I am quoting Evolutionists ...and still winning the argument for Creation!!!!:D0 -
Advertisement
-
... some more amazing quotes from an Evolutionist on the religious aspects of Evolutionism :-
All quotes are from Dr Michael Ruse Editor of the Cambridge University Press Series in the Philosophy of Biology :-
...below he claims that Evolution provides the 'cornerstone' for the Evolutionist 'church' ... the same role that Jesus Christ plays in the real Church!!!
Huxley saw the need to found his own church, and evolution was the ideal cornerstone. It offered a story of origins, one that (thanks to progress) puts humans at the center and top and that could even provide moral messages. The philosopher Herbert Spencer was a great help here. He was ever ready to urge his fellow Victorians that the way to true virtue lies through progress, which comes from promoting a struggle in society as well as in biology--a laissez-faire socioeconomic philosophy. Thus, evolution had its commandments no less than did Christianity. And so Huxley preached evolution-as-world-view at working men's clubs, from the podia during presidential addresses, and in debates with clerics--notably Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford. He even aided the founding of new cathedrals of evolution, stuffed with displays of dinosaurs newly discovered in the American West. Except, of course, these halls of worship were better known as natural history museums. Science Mar 7 2003 p.1524 †
These new-style evolutionists--the mathematicians and empiricists--wanted to professionalize evolution because they wanted to study it full time in universities, with students and research grants, and so forth. However, like everyone else, they had been initially attracted to evolution precisely because of its quasi-religious aspects, regardless of whether these formed the basis of an agnostic/atheistic humanism or something to revitalize an old religion that had lost its spirit and vigor. Hence, they wanted to keep a value-impregnated evolutionism that delivered moral messages even as it strived for greater progressive triumphs. Science Mar 7 2003 p.1524 †
Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity. Science March 7 2003 p.1524 †0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement