Gravity is a fact. We can observe it, therefore it exists. The *theory* of gravity is an attempt to explain it. First we had newton’s laws and gallileo, then came einstein’s theory of relativity. Einstein’s theory isn’t completely provable, as there may be factors not taken into account, but it’s the most accurate theory we have.

The process of evolution is fact. It is beyond all doubt that animals are evolving, and this process is what explains genetic diversity. The *theory* of evolution is what tries to explain it, and it is incomplete. Natural selection is listed as an obvious factor. Further research has gone into genetics and environmental factors. It will never be possible to prove the theory of evolution, but it is without any doubt that evolution has, is, and will continue to shape the earth’s species. There’s vast mountains of evidence for it.

But anyway,

@Ron, I wanted to help answer #150 since Dave seems to have fallen asleep at the wheel after getting off to a great start. Give this serious consideration if you’re interested in getting a good idea of the case for evolution.

(Offensive names alert) Two great YouTube series:

“Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?” by Thunderf00t
“Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism” by AronRa

You can definitely extract a load of useful information from these (you might want to ignore some of the witty comments).

Otherwise, making an informed decision requires at least year each of university-level physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, and biology.

I’ll go ahead and assume that YouTube videos are not enough to convince you (and they shouldn’t be!). Majoring in evolutionary biology at a university _will_ convince you, however at the expense of time. Years and years.

The scientific method does not require ‘faith.’ Topics like evolution, abiogenesis and creation of the universe are based on hundreds of years of questioning, research, revision, and _evidence_. The latter two (abiogenesis and ‘big bang’) have a ways to go yet. However, evolution is (nearly) unanimously agreed upon. If evolution was a falsehood, it would have been eviscerated by the scientific community a long time ago.

Also, accepting evolution does not necessitate disbelief in a god. Even the last 3 popes (for the Catholics out there) support evolution. But this is a whole other topic.

Let me know what you think.

I’ve been a libertarian for most of my voting life, and I do like a lot of what Paul has to say. I think his positions on economics and the war are very well thought out and realistic.

But to drop the ball on a matter like this, as a scientist first and a voter second, it sends me running for the hills.

His misunderstanding and denial of evolution lead me to question his ability and even more importantly his willingness to research topics that may be outside of his expertise. That is not the sort of person I want as a President.

Items of faith cannot be observed by anyone. They are only to be believed. Like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, God, and Creationism.

Thanks, I’ll check it out. As you’ve probably guessed, I’ve had extensive experience discussing this issue with creationists, and I’m getting a bit weary of people who pontificate about what science says but who are too lazy to get off their duff and actually learn what science says.

Although I am an atheist/agnostic (like most top-flight scientists of course), I would not presume to tell Christians what their faith teaches if I had not done extensive reading in the Christian holy book. I do not expect Christians to simply spoon-feed me the Bible on some online discussion thread. However, too many Christians do demand that we professional scientists “prove” to them evolution in a thread like this instead of their actually reading the requisite scientific books and taking the needed classes for themselves.

Laziness.

That so many Christians are so certain of themselves in complex technical subjects such as information theory, about which they know nothing, I find quite remarkable.

Dave

The world evolution is used to designate two things in science, theory and fact. The FACT is that species CHANGE OVER TIME. The THEORY of evolution by NATURAL SELECTION, GENE DRIFT, and GENETIC FLOW, the currently accepted scientific model is simply an explanatory framework that BEST fits the phenomena we ALL experience from day to day. Surely one would agree with the fact that “creatures” (organisms) change; do you own DOGS or CATS? Well guess what? At one time they were wild animals and there was much, much less variety amongst them. Now, thanks to breeding (which is a controlled evolutionary process) we have lots and lots of breeds and they are making new ones every day. Even early Greek physics, such as that studied by Thales, Anaximander, and later Aristotle (who’s ideas the Catholic church Ironically accepted as their own ), OBSERVED that creatures changed over time, which by the way, predates the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

As a theoretical framework, evolution is simply the most accurate explanation science has for explaining certain phenomena. It is yes, one most dire, as it points to ORIGINS and that scares people b/c it asks that one often time challenge their beliefs and assumptions. However it IS the best theory for science to use. The Christian Creationist-Model CANNOT be taught AS SCIENCE because it does NOT provide an accurate framework for the changes we experience.

Does this however, mean that Creationism should not be taught? NO. Creationism and religious VALUE SHOULD be taught, for a plurality of different viewpoints are CRUCIAL to an individuals ability to critically and personally decide what is right and wrong for themselves. I’m sorry to say this, but the bible was written by a variety of politically devious individuals; people who were, at various periods of political unrest, MOTIVATED TO ALTER THE BELIEFS of people through dogma, that is unchallenged belief structure. Just take a look at all the versions of the bible out there and you’ll realize that. What makes a particular Christian partial to a particular version? I can’t answer that. That would be beyond my knowledge and presumptuous of me. Everyone derives their values differently.

It is important to promote understanding by introducing people to a variety of different learning styles, however CREATION-SCIENCE is NOT science, it is a sloppy importation of Christian dogma into science. In order to be scientific it must undergo rigorous testing, which it has and the conclusions are absurd. This does not mean Christianity is absurd Nor believing in God and Jesus. One should be reserved for Science, the other a religious studies class, philosophy, or Sunday school. Thank you.