A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

[CoolBug]

I still like to know where micro and macro evolution came from... i think the word evolution is misunderstood by a lot of people

I think it's partly because of pushing the goal posts. And then also to twist the theory in an attempt to make it fit with their bed time story tales. As well as an attempt to blow smoke and cause some confusion and doubt.

First they disagree with the concept, now it seems they are attempting to break down the concept and accept half of it almost like a comprise.

So they can still say noahs ark is historically accurate, it's just that they needed a whole lot less animals, like only 2 cats were needed to micro evolve into all the cat species that you see today.

This allows them to still argue creationism where all these basic type creatures were put into existence by god with his wand saying things like: petronum

 

[w1z4rd]

 

[unskinnybob]

I was, and still am, interested in the concept of "teleology" and humans' various purposeful endeavours e.g. science, sport, religion etc. It appeared, and still does, to be true in a common sense manner and not anti-scientific in any sense. I thought ID was a good way to defend the concept. I don't any more, blame Feser's Last Superstition and Aristotle (the chap who started it all ), Aquinas and co. for that .

So there is hope for the others. Encouraging.

 

[porchrat]

<image removed to keep things concise>

That 47% figure for the States is scary. Modern science is just failing to get through to huge portions of that population.

Where are those figures from? What year etc.

 

[RiaX]

A lot of the people in the US are scientifically illiterate. Its a problem Carl Sagan tried to address in his final publication

 

[CoolBug]

Largely due to religion unfortunately.

 

[rwenzori]

I think that was rwenzori...

Eish! I've been found out!