Storyteller wrote:I`ve been reading this with great interest as I`m undecided about ToE.
Abel, I don`t think that scientists would be put off disproving evolution, if they could, the whole point of science is to try and unearth the truth. A theory is proposed, evidence is looked for and put forward. So far, no one has found evidence that disproves ToE. I honestly think, if they did, they would expose it. It would be a monumental discovery.
Yes Annette, but the problem here is that the theory of evolution is taught as scientific fact and. It scientific theory , and not only this but it is being taught with a religious zeal that doesn't allow honest scientific inquiry to follow the eviden e to wherever it may lead.Storyteller wrote:I`ve been reading this with great interest as I`m undecided about ToE.
Abel, I don`t think that scientists would be put off disproving evolution, if they could, the whole point of science is to try and unearth the truth. A theory is proposed, evidence is looked for and put forward. So far, no one has found evidence that disproves ToE. I honestly think, if they did, they would expose it. It would be a monumental discovery.
Doctor stephen meyer once got a paper of hs published in the smithsonian and as soon as the editor published it he was taken out if hs position in the smithsonian,even though the editor is also an evolutionary biologist .
Them to follow this one if the talking mouth pieces for Darwinian evolution eugenie Scott got on cnn and blatantly lied on national tv saying that there were no peer reviewed papers on intelligent design.
In this video Scott clearly is caught in a lie and yet the interviewer dan a brahmas gets her off the hook and goes on the offensive against Scott .
http://youtu.be/TSkN_9k663U
Now Rick has given me a very plausible theory of evolution which is front loading or pre programming that could have taken place and i can see his point on this but I also see the point of ID as well.
Shutting off critique on evolution in our educational institutions despite a larger number of biologists accepting evolution is actually a science stopper not a science starter. I've never seen a theory so insulated from inquiry like evolution is , to the point here you better not ask any questions that are critical of it.
If it's such a powerful theory then why not allow people with alternate theories critique it ? I mean to demote an evolutionary biologist from his position because he passed an ID paper through peer review ?
Is that science of a cult ?
Annette the point shouldn't be that anyone should disprove it, the fact should be that the onus of proof is on the one making the positive claim and therefore the burden of proof is on them to show it to be a scientific fact .