Science, Creation & EvolutionRing SpeciesGiven that macroevolution cannot be directly observed or experimented on (at least not currently) is due mainly to time. However, the fact that speciation has been observed demonstrates that the basic principles that underly the theory of evolution are sound. Again, evolution within species is inferential to, and supportive of, macroevolution. It is more a matter of degree and time, not a flaw in the basic principles. Evolution in itself makes no statement as to whether god exixts or not, and of such things I do not worry about when equating whether I believe anything. Evolution simply states that over time organisms change, and that these minute changes add up over time, and that these compounded minor changes eventually equate to big changes. Again, it is not what I choose to believe, evolution is simply the best explanation for the variety of life on Earth as we understand it today. This is why I believe, there is no want. Again, want lies solely with the religious as their is no rational explanation, especially in the face of scientific understanding and reason, for the existence of a greater power. I have read the "studies" concerning the decay in the speed of light. I also question the cause for this proposed decay. It appeared to me that human error and impercise mesasurements accounted for the decay rather than a variation in the speed of light. If you argue that the speed of light is in decay rather than errors in measurement (or rather a movement towards more accurate measurement) then in reviewing the data you will notice that some measurements in later studies were faster than those in earlier studies, and some were slower. This in itself refutes and invalidates this theory. All it takes is one object to fall upward, away from the center of attraction between two bodies of mass, to invalidate the theory of gravity as written and understood, and so too it is for the decay of light theory.
It is not "telling", it is science. I have no qualms about questioning any scientific theory, in fact I would be extremely concerned if non-creationists did NOT question the validity of any given scientific theory. This demonstrates continued search for scientific knowledge in absence of exterior motives. What I do have qualms about is when creationists set out to disprove any given scientific theory because they feel that it threatens their belief in the creator. The view of Earth as the center of the universe comes immediately to mind. Today should one argue against Earth orbiting the Son, people would laugh at you or think you ignorant. Why? Because it flys in the face of reason (read science). Now it is possible to mathematically posit the Earth (or even myself, for that matter) at the center of the universe. However the calculations and exceptions are much more complex than the commonly accepted (scientific) alternative. Science searches for parsimony and creationist theories are anything but parsimoneous.
And here is the fundamental difference between you and I. What I believe is not based on any faith or lack therof. It is based on what is observed, tested, and inferred. Your use of the word science here is also in question. Science is the search for understanding and the best explanation given a body of evidence. Creationist ideology is a search to find support of, and prove, the existence of a creator. Science and evolution can coexist with a creator, however religion seems to find it hard to coexist with science nad evolution. Excepting the appliance of the term "scientific" to creationist ideology, I have noted nothing that supports creationist theories for the diversity of life. Indeed, the story of Noah (if you believe such) is clearly the greatest friend of evolutionary theory. Small boat, lots of plants and animals (O.K. I am assuming that god just forgot to account for all the plants which could not have survived 40 days of complete submersion, and so I allow him this error and assume he had Noah gather them to his boat too). What could possibly account for post-flood diversity of life? Hmm, just maybe it could be macroevolution. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame