Evolution, Smevolution
Do you believe in Evolution?
This question has come up a few times in the Republican Debates (Huckabee's beliefs, Brownback's beliefs). It has not with the Democrats because we all know the Democrats are all fag atheist abortionists. I was not invited to either debate (thank you MSM blackout), so I will say it here: I do believe in the theory of Evolution. All of it.
"Wait," you say. "He admits evolution is just a theory." Yes. But for a theory to be adopted, it has to be able to explain past events and accurately predict future events. Gravity is just a theory. If you hold a rock up and drop it, you expect it will fall. You have no proof that it will, or even that there is such a thing as gravity that has made things fall in past situations. Yet, when you drop the rock, it does indeed fall, and your theory of gravity holds. [Sidebar: this is the Newtonian theory of gravity. Scientists have essentially proven it false. But I assume those of you not familiar with relativity and space/time curvature do not really care.]
The same thing goes for evolution. We don't know why living things are the way they are. Evolution and natural selection does explain things. It is testable on a small scale. We have no proof that it is definitely what brought about the species homo sapien, but so far, it has held up, with some minor tweaks and additions as we have discovered new evidence.
If you want to say that evolution is really the will of God, that He has guided it all, well I can't prove you wrong. Essentially, you are multiplying all terms by the same variable, which gets canceled out and can't be solved for. You're adding an unnecessary level of complication that doesn't explain things any better. And you are assuming the existence of God, something that has no scientific credibility.
The best thing about evolution is that it is just a theory. If new evidence surfaces that contradicts what evolution says should happen, then the theory has to adapt to explain the new evidence. It doesn't assume our knowledge 200 years ago (much less 4000) was perfect and does not need to be updated.
This question has come up a few times in the Republican Debates (Huckabee's beliefs, Brownback's beliefs). It has not with the Democrats because we all know the Democrats are all fag atheist abortionists. I was not invited to either debate (thank you MSM blackout), so I will say it here: I do believe in the theory of Evolution. All of it.
"Wait," you say. "He admits evolution is just a theory." Yes. But for a theory to be adopted, it has to be able to explain past events and accurately predict future events. Gravity is just a theory. If you hold a rock up and drop it, you expect it will fall. You have no proof that it will, or even that there is such a thing as gravity that has made things fall in past situations. Yet, when you drop the rock, it does indeed fall, and your theory of gravity holds. [Sidebar: this is the Newtonian theory of gravity. Scientists have essentially proven it false. But I assume those of you not familiar with relativity and space/time curvature do not really care.]
The same thing goes for evolution. We don't know why living things are the way they are. Evolution and natural selection does explain things. It is testable on a small scale. We have no proof that it is definitely what brought about the species homo sapien, but so far, it has held up, with some minor tweaks and additions as we have discovered new evidence.
If you want to say that evolution is really the will of God, that He has guided it all, well I can't prove you wrong. Essentially, you are multiplying all terms by the same variable, which gets canceled out and can't be solved for. You're adding an unnecessary level of complication that doesn't explain things any better. And you are assuming the existence of God, something that has no scientific credibility.
The best thing about evolution is that it is just a theory. If new evidence surfaces that contradicts what evolution says should happen, then the theory has to adapt to explain the new evidence. It doesn't assume our knowledge 200 years ago (much less 4000) was perfect and does not need to be updated.
posted by Dorshorst at 22:24
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home