Quote:
You can call the whole body of knowledge a 'theory' if that language suits the situation, but there is no more debate among the genetic scientists about the overall process. There will, of course, be fine tuning of specifics, there may be a few 'way out of the mainstreamers' who 'say it ain't so', as there seems to be in all sciences, but the process of evolution is NOT in doubt.
Anyone who wants to argue this fact cannot do so without an education in genetics. Once you have that education, you cannot dispute evolution.
|
Bernie Ebbers and Dennis Kozlowski (sp?) thought there was no more debate on whether they could be caught [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]
This is a challenging text above. You use a theory to prove a theory, ok. Creationists do the same.
I must admit that I don't think there needs to be mutual exclusion. I believe the universe was created, and has evolved to the state we are in today. (Some call it first cause, which sounds like a bleached version of creationism without the creator).
I believe I have comfortably and successfully reconciled things.
But I still have an open mind, and remain an avid researcher. To that point, I have never heard an explanation of "First Cause," so I look to philosophy/religion to explain that piece because science conveniently explains it as "we don't touch that part because it was before time." <-- copout
DJ
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2002-08-24 11:41 ]</font>