Re: Evolution/Theory

[Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4PI.COM>]

> So we have this huge amount of data that tells us that life has indeed changed
> over time.  We call this succession "evolution".  Scientists then develop
> theories that, they hope, explain the process.


Here I am nitpicking you again. No offense, really.


We do more than hope. If it don't explain it, we don't stop. This is
what makes Evolution as a Theory so hard to topple. In fact, I would
go on to say that it is as impossible to topple as the Theory of
Physics. In reality, the Theory of Evolution, as that of Physics, is
no longer about being right or wrong, by itself. Both are like
massive vacuum cleaners, they gobble everything in their path, keep
what is "true," discard the rest. *BY DEFINITION* of the word Theory.

Because of this, creationism -may- actually have one or two points to
offer. Creationism is always presented as a series of word problems.
The underpinnings were discussed in the Bible long ago. When a word
problem is presented to solve, we have exercises that result in
something to add to Physics and Evolution. If any scientist, creation
or otherwise, manages to make a valid point, Physics and Evolution
Theories change to suit it. BY DEFINITION again. Creationism
strengthens Evolution ultimately.

The only sticking point is the claim that a word problem might shake
the entire underpinnings of the theory, down to its core. I say bring
it on. Contrary to what a creationist might think, we already have a
couple of these under our belt: Einstein's Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics. Rather that destroying Physics, these each ushered in an
unprecedented renaissance of learning and truth. I am not a geologist
or a biochemist or a botanist and so on, but I'm sure that Evolution
has had its share of the same (only the creationists think that
Darwin's 19th century theories are fully intact today); perhaps some
one on the list can elucidate.



Stefan Jeglinski