This story about the so called "Hobbits" and several like it that have appeared over the last few months suggest to me that the Theory of Evolution is a theory that is constantly changing and growing as new data is discovered and integrated.
This doesn't seem like a dogma or religion to me - it sounds like good, solid science. What do you think?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20891440/site/newsweek/page/0/
2007-10-06 16:48:24 · 22 answers · asked by Alan 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
In case I wasn't obvious - I am a strong believer in science and in evolution.
2007-10-06 17:02:59 · update #1
God either planted them to test our faith or the devil planted them there to deceive us. Isn't that obvious?
*Snort*
2007-10-06 16:52:30 · answer #1 · answered by Pangloss (Ancora Imparo) AFA 7 · 7⤊ 3⤋
Good solid science is supposed to be the search for the truth. When scientists try to investigate some phenomenon that is outside the real of scientific observation, they come up with speculations. As scientific research proves these speculations wrong, they revise them.
No, that is not good, solid science. It is speculation based on a dogmatic assumption that life has evolved. Science is not based on assumptions. Science is based on observation.
A lot of scientists seem to have forgotten this. It's sad that I have to remind them of it.
2007-10-06 20:07:50 · answer #2 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that evolution is science. However the article fails to make clear why they believe these specimens to be humans. I can see from the photo that they had projecting chins so it is obviously a human type of lower jaw.
The rest of the article about it having an ape-like wrist is interesting though, and news to me. I had been under the impression that they resembled recent humans.
Live and learn.
2007-10-06 16:59:46 · answer #3 · answered by Y!A-FOOL 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
evolution is, as you said, is just a theory, NOT a fact
I mean, do people KNOW it is true, or do they BELIEVE it is true? People keep saying creation vs evolution and religion vs science. By this, they are implying evolution is science, but it is not. You can believe it and put it into science textbooks if you want it, but it is still not science.
By the way, How to you repeat, test and observe evolution anyway, like the big bang? People often use tons of MICRO evolution examples (changes within a kind, like different types of dogs, cats, cows) to trick people believe in the MACRO evolution (evolved from a rock to a dog in millions of years), while is just a made-believe.
2007-10-06 17:08:54 · answer #4 · answered by chengkm 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Both Creationism, which believes in God and Evolution, which believes in science are the same because they are both doctrines of materialism.
Similarly, teachings from love and compassion, such as Christianity, that believes in God and Buddhism, which believes in science are the same because they offer trustworthy and effective methods for social and pyschological well-being. They can both cure diseases of the heart and mind or spirit.
Therefore, the answer to your question is materialism is static dogma and love and compassion is good solid spiritual science.
2007-10-06 17:03:16 · answer #5 · answered by element 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I do not believe in evolution, there is just everything against it.
that being said, the truth has never been in vogue anyway
evolution as taught in schools is darwin. evolution taught in college is Dr. Goulds, neo-darwinism. (two different things)
evolution is taught as dogma. It is a religion on in that it has a founder if you will, darwin, has specific teachings that exclude any existance of God or action of the said mythical God. It has its on set of rules, and fulfills are the requirements for a religion including faith in unseen, unprovable, as defined in spontanious life from azoic material, and moving from a single celled animal to a multi-celled, multi-tissued, (organs, hollow and solid, highly complex organs such as eyes, nerves transmitting information and the brain to interpret what is seen).
Evolution will constantly be patched until mankind dies off. That is the way a lie is, you just have to keep propping it up. It does make for good debates though.
but they just call it the fact or theory of evolution.
I call it just another bill of goods sold to honest people.
2007-10-06 17:13:33 · answer #6 · answered by magnetic_azimuth 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It's neither static dogma nor religion. It's scientific theory based on evidence.
As new evidence comes to light it's incorporated into the theory. New evidence helps it to grow and develop, but so far hasn't changed the fundamentals - descent with modification.
If it ever does, we'll let you know.
2007-10-06 16:56:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Atheist always seem to forget that micro evolution is possible (evolution in one species) Maco evolution is not (evolution between seperate species) as Darwin said that if you could find millions of transitional bones than he is right if not the he is not. guess what. Haven't found millions. This hobbit thing however, has too many wholes. Could have been an animal that went extinct. Could have been dorphs. Could have been humans from along time ago, but not a seperate species.
Now for an Atheist this is going to increase them not believing in God. For a Christian there is too many wholes. This is how it is always going to go. Christian find evidence and Atheist say thats not enough. Atheist find evidence and christians say thats not enough. It always comes down to a choice. Are you going to believe in God or not. I think God made it this way.
2007-10-06 17:00:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Jainism claims to be cool with all of that, yet i don't possibly see how the guidelines of physics can clarify somebody's soul going off to heaven to grow to be a god. perchance if the guidelines of physics as all of us understand them are all in basic terms some tricky laptop application...perchance then Jainism is obtainable. it incredibly is obtainable to maintain on with the classes of the Buddha without believing in something supernatural, yet that is composed of rejecting reincarnation, it fairly is assumed by skill of many buddhists. Zen buddhism does not commonly care too lots approximately whether or not there is reincarnation. Theravada buddhists do not require one to have faith in reincarnation, yet not believing in reincarnation would be seen to be divergent from the classes of that sect.
2016-10-21 07:14:29 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evolution is science. If it ever becomes static dogma or religion, it will cease to be science.
2007-10-06 17:17:14 · answer #10 · answered by qxzqxzqxz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the problem is that there are christians and atheists alike who treat it like religious dogma and thus engage in nonsensical circular arguments - where if one is right, the other must be wrong.
science is about skepticism, debate and knowledge. atheists need to remember that too..........(a theory is the best explanation we have at present to explain a phenomenon. eg-gravity. a good, solid theory. one needn't "believe" in it for it to be true, false or eventually misproven, if possible)
2007-10-06 16:55:17 · answer #11 · answered by kujigafy 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋