A dectective is looking for a culprit. He goes around gathering evidence that will point to the muderer. One person whom I'll call Chance seems to be the one. He was at the scene. He had a motive. His fingerprints are on the gun. Everybody is sure that Chance did it until the very end where it turns out that all of the evidence, while true, had a different explanation and it turns out that another person was the real culprit.
Because everyone was trying to see how the evidence could prove that Chance was the killer they were not looking for or open to believing a different explanation for it. They used science and evidence and logic and if it would not have been for that big break in the case an innocent man would have been arrested for murder.
2007-07-16 13:43:48 · 24 answers · asked by Martin S 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Except murder mysteries are cheesey and poorly written. Besides that the fundamental flaw is the fact you state they were not open to other beliefs, unlike scientists, and searching for clues specifically for a murder is vastly different than getting information and then forming an idea from it.
2007-07-16 13:51:22 · answer #1 · answered by meissen97 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That happens sometimes too. Unfortunately, evolution is blind to the concept of ethics, justice, and compassion, that all ultimately characterize humanity, the ultimate and top species.
Hey, science can prove creation of protein if conditions and raw materials happen, as it did by "chance" so long ago, but science cannot make protein "alive", or even create organelles and cell structure, or purpose or drive to continue to exist; Its still just a useless lifeless motionless purposeless piece of protein which would denature into more useless molecule, or disintegrate or degenerate into oblivion, instead of just becoming a better molecule. Watson and Crick's next step was throwing out their protein molecule.
Life came about or developed WITH balance, where different species and life forms all support each other's existence through eons of time, whats the chance of that, not just some life form wiping out all others and winning the superior species game.
2007-07-16 21:02:36 · answer #2 · answered by million$gon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a LOT of evidence we're talking about pointing out towards evolution: fingerprints, DNA testing, a trail o blood from the victim to evolution's house, witnesses, evolution has no alibi and had motif to kill the victim. Also, there is not another plausible explanation for the evidence.
It seems to me that evolution is much like the OJ Simpson case and creationism is much like OJ's lawyers desperately trying to discredit the overwhelming amount of evidence (you can actually feel Happy about it, if OJ's lawyers did it why not the creationists)
Paz de Cristo
2007-07-16 20:51:55 · answer #3 · answered by Emiliano M. 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Uh,,,I'd have to say no on that one. Sounds like you're trying to hard to analogise your disdain for evolutionary theory. There's nothing to fear regarding evolution. It will never come to the conclusion that Chance did anything because chance is a bundle of questions in and of itself. There is no culprit that evolutionary theory is pursuing. It's just a path that science is currently on. Eventually, the path will lead elsewhere and then that path will lead elsewhere. There can be no answer (or culprit) because each answer obtained along the journey presents many more questions. Those questions will long outlive humanity.
2007-07-16 20:56:31 · answer #4 · answered by Kevin M 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, at least evolutionists USE science and evidence and logic. Creationism is like arresting the one that they decide is guilty despite having NO evidence. (Talk about sending an innocent guy to jail!) Remember the Salem witch trials? I rest my case.
2007-07-16 21:24:37 · answer #5 · answered by Jess H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a great story except numerous potential culprits have been excluded based on the evidence. The other problem is that eyewitnesses saw Chance do it.
2007-07-16 20:56:27 · answer #6 · answered by novangelis 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Interesting
2007-07-16 20:46:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The jury says: no reasonable doubt. The jury could still be wrong, but it's our best approach.
Similarly, CAUSALITY could be flawed. It's ultimately based on our interpretation of experiences, but maybe there's "some other explanation" out there. We can't keep operating with that idea and suspend all belief. Besides, as much as you may dislike scientists' methods, the results are undeniable. We can trust them to discover the truth with their approach. If we can't trust that... we can't trust anything. Especially not God, who has not seen fit to show itself to us "heathens."
2007-07-16 20:58:54 · answer #8 · answered by Skye 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not really. The theory of evolution is based on the repeatability of various experiments and observations. Science uses these two criteria, observation and repeatability, especially by others, to do its business. Computers have evolved, or are you still using windows 95, so why can't animals? And if religion is your big deal, why do you think that god is so stupid that he could not create a world in which its inhabitants evolve and use science.
Is god a moron, or what?
2007-07-16 20:54:10 · answer #9 · answered by haywoodwhy 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Evolution theory suffered a major set back
a few years ago when scientists discovered
the center of a gene to be a vacuum.
(probably a tiny tornado )
Current theory calls for bosons to surround
genetic frequencies somewhere above the
speed of dimension. Should this be true, it
will change the way we view time and space.
2007-07-16 20:58:40 · answer #10 · answered by kyle.keyes 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋