Evolution Theory Challenged? What do people who strongly believe this theory as a Principal has to say?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution

I am not a religious nut, or promoter of creationism either, what I say is where is the fairness in teaching the opposing view?

There is no Balance, if you watch the Discovery Channel (I do a lot) most programs they have on Evolution of Pre-Historic Animals are presented as facts it is not mentioned that this is one possible explanation by someone.

It is not a good idea to call something absolute truth when it is not.

My point here is preaching of the theory of evolution as the only explanation of creation is not right.

Answer 1

Evolution has always been preached to be fact because some say it proves intelligent design wrong.

But, schools and universities never showed the other side of the argument...There are so many missing pieces in evolution. Scientists only find pieces of skulls and bones so they can only speculate on what the skull came from.

Though I cannot say that evolution is not true, for all I know, it could be very true...but I just wonder, after all the millions of years it took for apes to evolve into humans, why, in a mere 5,000 years have we gone from hairy unintelligent cavemen to intelligent beings with a conscience and brains that are capable of figuring out life's biggest mysteries?

Answer 2

Should we teach the theory that the sun revolves around the earth, or that the earth is flat, because there are still people who believe it, and it's only "fair" to give them equal time?

Facts aren't "fair." If John Smith devoutly believes that 2+2 = 5, should we teach that in Math class, because it's fair, or "democratic"?

Evolution is near-universally accepted by scientists as the only current *scientific* theory to adequately explain the variety of species. It has been supported by research in biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, and other fields.

A theory, in everyday language, means "a guess," or "an idea," but the scientific meaning is entirely different. A scientific theory is something that has been rigorously tested over time, like the atomic theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution. The details will be refined, but the overall concept is not in doubt.

Evolution is not being "preached" as absolute truth. If someone came along with a better *scientific* theory tomorrow, and could prove it, it would be accepted. But creationism and intelligent design offer no scientific proof. Their proponents do not conduct scientific experiments, they merely engage in attacks on evolution (which are easily disproven by knowledgeable professionals). In fact, even if creationists *could* disprove evolution, it would not make their own beliefs one whit more probable.

The "Intelligent Designer" cannot be identified by scientific method. These movements assume that God is the Designer, but this cannot be tested, proven or nullified.

There have been multiple court cases that have affirmed that creationism and intelligent design are religion, not science. Therefore, they do not belong in science class, or on science programs. Creationism could be discussed on programs about religion and society-- but not science.

I should add that science, by it's design, limits itself to natural, observable, testable phenomena. Science does not seek to prove or disprove the existence of God, as this is not a testable hypothesis. The fact of evolution has no bearing on the existence of God-- there are many religious people who accept evolution.

Answer 3

I'd say your an idiot. Read the article. They are just challenging some of the ways of how we evolved, not that we evolved.

Since 99.99% of biologists believe in Evolution maybe you should too. Unless you've spent 8 years getting a doctorate degree in evolutionary biology your not a credible source.

The news media has a stupid title "Evolution theory challenged" But that doesn't mean the whole scientific theory is wrong. I knew you religious nuts would jump all over the title without reading the article.

Answer 4

This finding does NOT challenge the overall theory of evolution. Quoted from the article itself:

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."

Answer 5

I just read an article about that in the paper today. I never believed that we evolved from apes anyway.

Answer 6

Sounds like a load of crap.

Answer 7

I believe it