Trifecta Billy wrote on Jun 14^th, 2012 at 7:14pm:


And rightly so. There's nothing scary about that at all.

commanman wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 12:16pm:


I don't accept Darwinian evolution as truth, but merely as single component of the most reasonable (reasonable being a relative measure against the empirical ideal) explanation of observed natural phenomenon currently available.

glen65 wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:


I'll answer by providing an example:

Symbiogenesis is continuously more accepted as playing a major role in the evolution of species on Earth.

Darwin's theory of evolution does not contain or even mention the theory of symbiogenesis.

Had Darwin never published his work though it is likely that the theory of symbiogenesis would never have emerged as it is in many ways a refinement of, or potentially a commentary on his theories.

This is a common theme in scientific research. The Bohr model of the atom is a flawed and incomplete model, yet we still teach it to kids in chemistry class. Why? Because it provides a conceptual building block, without which it is exceedingly difficult to move onto more advanced (and more accurate and complete) atomic models. Without the flawed work of Bohr we'd be missing much of the body of knowledge on atomic structure despite the fact he himself did not directly contribute much of it.

bama b. beau wrote on Jun 15^th, 2012 at 1:59pm:


I was clearly speaking about religion generally, as a whole.

You're taking one specific person and making him representative of his entire race.

Quote:


Then why not refine symbiogenesis by excluding the Darwin
component? Since symbiogenesis now exists its would make
more sense to remove something that you yourself dont see
as truth.