Science, Creation & EvolutionWhy is Academia evolutionist?There is value in hearing other opinions and the facts they cite to support them. The words aren't, in most cases, bigger than the ones you're accustomed to seeing. They are just specialized words, used for things that are not part of our everyday experience, but need to be given names. By custom, they are given Latin or Greek names which works pretty well. Science doesn't prove things, it merely gets increasingly greater confidence in them. Speciation is an observed fact. However, creationists no longer call speciation "macroevolution." The last time I checked, most "creation scientists" figured that evolution extended to new species, genera and families. I haven't yet seen a good argument against it. The last world-class biologist who rejected evolution died about a hundred years ago. If we're talking science, we need to use the scientific explanation. In science, a theory is a well-tested idea or body of ideas that explains natural phenomena. I'm aware that "theory" has a common meaning as well, but that's not the one scientists use. No kidding? I learned about it in the mid-60s, and at that time, it had the meaning it has today. You deserve a lot of respect for lasting that long... True. But in this case, we have nearly 50 years of common use in science to back it up. I have no idea how much earlier that definition was established. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame