Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.
Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution.
2007-06-17 18:44:56 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
(Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals--which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.
When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.
Is it all a bit clearer now..?
2007-06-17 18:45:28 · update #1
Yes it is!
I just LOVE this lecture!
And to think that most of them can't even appreciate a free education! Oh well....
Reprogramming is a long and tedious process. Especially when there are so many in need of it! Keep up the good work and know that you are not alone in the task at hand.
; )
2007-06-17 19:07:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Taking things out of context is a legendary skill among atheists. When coupled to the fact that the methods of proof used in Legal/Historical Apologetics is obviously not the same as the scientific method, although the science "geeks" can't seem to wrap their minds around that concept, it is no surprise that radical science gurus should seek to choose Christianity among all the world's belief systems to attack specifically. However, this is to be expected from people who can't seem to stop or avoid mixing apples and oranges.
2007-06-18 01:55:39 · answer #2 · answered by RIFF 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
IS IT TIME FOR YOU TO GET A BLOG?
Answer - Yes
2007-06-18 01:50:24 · answer #3 · answered by talliemay 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's clear but you can't reason with unreasonable people.
2007-06-18 01:49:26 · answer #4 · answered by Daisy Indigo 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Go here. http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/index.shtml
2007-06-18 03:49:01 · answer #5 · answered by Heaven_Bound 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yeah, thanks for clearing that up for us
2007-06-18 01:48:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, please explain more.
2007-06-18 01:53:44 · answer #7 · answered by Someone who cares 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋