|
|||||||||
|
Doug Dobney said...
Mr. Epling.
L. G. Figgins said...
It wouldn't be science if it wasn't. Just the facts, mam. Why must everything be black and white? You can't make a decent conclusion without first having a foundation of knowledge. Science, despite belief to the contrary, proves the existence of higher intelligence. Why this same old argument? Taught in schools. Hope so! How can independent thought exist in a vacuum? And would you exclude certain chapters of history? Many have in the process of re-writing it. And can we claim to know the mind of God? What if the creation was seven million years instead of seven days? What if it was written in metaphor to be assimilated by our still-evolving human brains?
Keith Rowley said...
Neat. Although firmly ensconced in the science camp, I also find blind 'faith' by scientists irritating - they should know - indeed they proclaim to know - better. For example, science proclaims that life arose (and arises) spontaneously without even knowing what life really is, other than by observation of the behaviors it causes. This is a FAR more important issue than evolution - which seems thoroughly understood and proven. For once life exists, the rest follows through mutation and growing complexity as a means of adaptation. |
|
||||||