Theistic Evolution - My Personal Problem with it

[JonFromMinnesota]

Of course it is.

When it's been repeatedly tested and confirmed from several different scientific disciplines, it's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of understanding. You clearly have a lack of understanding.

No, it's a DISTORTION of biology; an unprovable theory of origins that takes what is known and extrapolates it into a fanciful but not remotely possible theory of molecules-to-man.

You can say this till you're blue in the face, you'll still be wrong. Nothing makes sense in biology without evolution. Next time you get a flu vaccination, ask why the researchers have to come up with a new vaccination every year. You won't like the answer. Also, science is not in the business of proving anything, that's what math does. Another example of you not understanding science.

Speciation is observable to a point, beyond which sterility always results.

There's this thing called genetic drift.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/speciation-183

Why not repeat what Christ told you?

We're not debating Christianity, we're talking about evolution. Many posters here are trying to teach you.....including other Christians who accept it.

News flash. Evolution has never been observed and repeated attempts to test it have proved it doesn't happen.

News flash, evolution has been observed, it's always being observed.
Here are just 8 examples: http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/
And my favorite example of evolution, Tiktaalik Roseae: This fossil showed off the predictive abilities of evolution. Can creationism make predictions about the natural world? No, because it's nonsense.
http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

Don't think that the dung you sling hasn't been slung before; especially in academia where those too incompetent to compete in the real world hide in the classroom and try to indoctrinate others into believing things they themselves cannot fully grasp.

Why does creationism time and time again lose in the court of law when it tries to get into classrooms? It's been shown to be nonsense over and over and over again. It's impossible to teach biology without evolution because nothing makes sense without it. Could you please demonstrate you know how to use the scientific method?

Get off your cloud. We aren't putting forth a theory in Gullible Science Weekly.

I asked you to provide a test for your hypothesis and all you could muster was an insult.

There is one Creator and by His hands were all things made that were made. You stand in the middle of the creation in awe of how it created itself without being willing to take a step back and realize that it absolutely could NOT have created itself.

These are just claims. What test and falsifiable test have you run for your hypothesis.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've provided nothing but claims.

For all you talk about testing and falsifying, no experiment has ever demonstrated YOUR theory to be true

Ever heard of the human genome project? It was lead by a devout Christian. I'll quote him at the end here. There were actually falsifiable tests in this project. One example being that humans and chimpanzees have a different number of chromosomes. Humans with 23 pairs, chimps with 46. Evolution predicts that if we share a common ancestor, our genome will have a fused chromosome. That's exactly what we find. A verifiable test that demonstrates the overwhelming fact that we share a common ancestor.

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that". - Francis Collins

In fact, the closest thing to increasing complexity you guys can come up with is a bacteria that adapts its diet.... which is what bacteria do.

Bacteria experiments aren't trying to demonstrate complexity. It demonstrates random mutations and natural selection. Please try to keep your arguments straight.

Wow, did you seriously write that?
Do you seriously NOT KNOW what science is?
Do you know the difference between natural and supernatural?

Yep, it's the study of the natural world.
Difference between the natural and supernatural? One is observable. We can study it and make predictions. The other is not observable and cannot be tested. It is by definition, imaginary.

The laws of thermodynamics demonstrate the impossibility of the auto-origination of anything in the physical world.

Cite your source.

As for the existence of the human soul, out of body experiences are not particularly rare, but they aren't physically provable. There have been cases of people reporting things that they saw during operations when they could not possibly have seen them, yet they are accurate to the smallest detail. How does this happen without a soul? Curious minds ask questions. Dull minds pretend in never happens.

The brain is a crazy organ. It produces DMT. A chemical that can give you a realistic, psychedelic experience. It's not fully understood but that doesn't mean you have a "soul". Yes curious minds ask questions and then they test those questions. You use your confirmation bias "I don't understand this therefore it's God and not only is it God, it's the God I believe in!"

They had some success manipulating things, but in doing so they demonstrated that the odds of even a single protein being formed naturally made it a statistical impossibility.

Statistical odds are irrelevant when you don't know the answer to the question. We don't know how life originated, so we can't know what the odds are. Improbability does not mean impossibility. It's just an argument from personal incredulity. "I don't know how this is possible, therefore it's false" You being born was a statistically improbability. About 1 in 400 trillion. But it's irrelevant to talk about.

Why is it that whenever someone looks at the same evidence and comes to a different conclusion THEY are lying?

Creationist websites tell their employees they can't use the scientific method. They even have a statement of faith that states that if any evidence contradicts their beliefs, then that evidence is discarded. That's being intellectually bankrupt and forces you into lying about the evidence. They are paid handsomely to lie.

Believing in impossibilities and teaching them as scientific truth is not a logical conclusion.

Evolution is not a belief system. It's the foundation of biology that is supported by an abundance of facts and is contradicted by none. The cool thing about facts is that they don't care what you believe. They are still facts

At least with God you have a supernatural entity beyond the laws of science.

A hypothesis that you failed to present a test for. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You've provided none.

Oh, there is tons of evidence. If you want physical proof you won't have that until it's too late.

This argument is laughable. You claim there is tons of evidence, yet you won't provide any and resort to a threat.

You're likely to believe just about anything with that type of reasoning. We call that gullibility.

 

[KWCrazy]

When it's been repeatedly tested and confirmed from several different scientific disciplines, it's not a matter of belief.

Since it hasn't, it's a belief. Radiated fruit flies never became anything other than fruit flies, though some were so deformed they couldn't fly. Evolution has never been observed. It's a belief. You clearly have a lack of understanding.

You can say this till you're blue in the face

You would call that proof of evolution, I'm sure.

Next time you get a flu vaccination, ask why the researchers have to come up with a new vaccination every year.

Ah, more dumb analogies; as if observed mutation of germs demonstrates molecules to man. Lock up gerbils for a dozen generations and pull out a rabbit you could be talking. I'm kind of surprised you didn't say that because I don't buy into the evolution lie that I can't use a computer.

Also, science is not in the business of proving anything

I'll remember that if I ever run afoul with forensic scientists. If science wasn't trying to prove common descent you wouldn't be here preaching Darwinism.
By the way. Google "Scientists prove." You'll get 144,000 hits.

There's this thing called genetic drift.

You get my drift man?
Q. What do you get when you cross a mule with a goat?
A. Nothing. Mules are sterile.

We're not debating Christianity, we're talking about evolution.

Yes, on a Christian website. The Scriptures tell us that God created universe in six days, including man on the sixth day. You're wasting your time trying to "teach me" more than that. You can't "teach me" anything which I know to be false. In addition to knowing evolution to be false, i know the word of God to be true. Beyond that, I know that the supernatural exists because I have personally experienced things which have no other explanation. As for Christians who accept the teaching of man above the teaching of Christ, I don't know by which standard they choose what parts of the Bible to accept and which to reject. There seems to be no consistency in that. Each seems to make up his own criteria.

Here are just 8 examples:

I never made it past the first one; the peppered moth; a fraud long since debunked but still being bantered around by the dishonest. What's next, the Piltdown man? Ape skulls mixed with humans? Horse evolution? Finches?
Want a prediction of the natural world. It's doomed. It was only ever meant to be a temporary dwelling.

Why does creationism time and time again lose in the court of law when it tries to get into classrooms?

Liberal judges.

It's impossible to teach biology without evolution because nothing makes sense without it.

Nice lie. I'm sure you believe it. It's also impossible to teach carpentry without knowing the history of the white ash, because nothing in carpentry makes sense without it. Biology observes what is. What was, surprisingly, cannot be observed.

I asked you to provide a test for your hypothesis and all you could muster was an insult.

The sad thing is that you think it's a hypothesis.

These are just claims. What test and falsifiable test have you run for your hypothesis.

Having experienced the presence of God and having actually seen demons; having witnesses demonic possession and exorcism; having seen the difference God can make in a previously wicked life, I would gather that I've seen the real thing and you have only read about it.

Ever heard of the human genome project?

No, until yesterday I lived in a tuna fish can under the freeway.

The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

I would contend that the evidence we all come from a common Creator is overwhelming.

Bacteria experiments aren't trying to demonstrate complexity.

Evolution evidences increasing complexity, and if a bacteria is evidence of evolution, what has it evolved into? Bacteria? Not much of an evolution if you ask me, but you guys are blown away by it.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Radiated fruit flies never became anything other than fruit flies, though some were so deformed they couldn't fly.

What you're describing is a negative mutation and evidence of evolution. "Still a fruit fly" is a creationist strawman and demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about.

"Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod, an animal, and so forth". http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html

A lion is 'still a cat' but you'd agree that it differs greatly from your every day house cat. You don't understand phylogeny trees and nested hierarchy works

Evolution has never been observed. It's a belief.

You can say that all you want, it will still be wrong. Facts don't care what you believe.

You would call that proof of evolution, I'm sure.

I can show you to be wrong all day long and you won't concede because you have to hold onto your deeply held beliefs. Cognitive dissonance can be a crazy thing.

Ah, more dumb analogies; as if observed mutation of germs demonstrates molecules to man.

It demonstrates the mechanisms of evolution. Genetic mutations and natural selection. It shows exactly what we'd expect if evolution were true. You can do all the mental gymnastics required to get around this fact but you'll still be wrong.

Lock up gerbils for a dozen generations and pull out a rabbit you could be talking.

This example would falsify evolution if it were to happen. Demonstrating once again you have absolutely no knowledge about evolution. You need to read up on phylogenetic trees and nested hierarchy.

If science wasn't trying to prove common descent you wouldn't be here preaching Darwinism.

Proven beyond a reasonable doubt would be a better phrase. There is no absolute proof in science because scientific theories are falsifiable. The evidence for common descent is overwhelming. Of course you don't argue against the evidence I showed you in the human genome project, you just hand wave it away and plug your ears with "la la la I can't hear you"

Q. What do you get when you cross a mule with a goat?
A. Nothing. Mules are sterile.

Exactly what you'd expect if evolution were true.
Horses and donkey's are different species but still related to the same family. (Think of your ridiculous 'it's still a fruit fly" argument) It is true that if they breed together, their offspring is not fertile because horses and donkey's have a different number of chromosomes. This doesn't mean evolution just stops from happening. They can still produce fertile offspring with their own species and genetic variation will continue there. The fact that you think this is evidence against evolution is erroneous.

Yes, on a Christian website. The Scriptures tell us that God created universe in six days, including man on the sixth day.

And what test do you have to demonstrate this claim to be true? The burden of proof belongs to you.

You're wasting your time trying to "teach me" more than that.

Because you don't want to learn. You hand wave everything away and refuse to address the evidence.

In addition to knowing evolution to be false, i know the word of God to be true.

Knowledge is demonstrable. We can demonstrate evolution to be true with an overwhelming amount of evidence from several independent lines of study. You have not presented one single shred of verifiable evidence for your claims.

I know that the supernatural exists because I have personally experienced things which have no other explanation.

Argument from personal experience is a logical fallacy. How am I able to verify the difference between a deluded person and a genuine experience and more importantly, how are you? Do you believe the people who say they have personal experiences with Allah, Krishna, Buddah?

As for Christians who accept the teaching of man above the teaching of Christ, I don't know by which standard they choose what parts of the Bible to accept and which to reject. There seems to be no consistency in that. Each seems to make up his own criteria.

This should be your first clue that religion is man made and likely false. 40,000 different denominations of Christianity and THOUSANDS of other religions throughout history. They contradict each other and have many different interpretations. How can you be certain that you have the correct one? They can't all be right but they can all be wrong. Open a thread in the apologetics section if you want to discuss this further. Apologetics here will get the thread shut down.

I never made it past the first one; the peppered moth; a fraud long since debunked but still being bantered around by the dishonest. What's next, the Piltdown man?

Not debunked. You can read more about it here. You know....where the scientific method is actually used and not creationist propaganda and lies. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

As far as Piltdown Man, do you know who exposed that fraud? Scientists who accept the theory of evolution. That's how science works. It's self correcting and it's a strength not a weakness. We have a massive hominid fossil record and it's not threatened by the fraudulent work of one person.

Liberal judges.

John Jones was the judge in the Dover trial. He's a conservative judge and was appointed by President Bush.
Care to show some honesty and admit you are wrong on this?

Having experienced the presence of God and having actually seen demons; having witnesses demonic possession and exorcism; having seen the difference God can make in a previously wicked life, I would gather that I've seen the real thing and you have only read about it.

Argument from personal experience is a logical fallacy and isn't evidence for anything. You see what you want to see. You have to ask yourself this question about the supernatural:
What is more likely? That the laws of nature have been suspended in your favor and in a way that you approve or have you made a mistake? Are you under a misapprehension?

Do you also believe in faith healing? I hope not because it can easily be demonstrated to be nonsense.

I would contend that the evidence we all come from a common Creator is overwhelming.

Yet....not a single shred of evidence has been presented.

Evolution evidences increasing complexity, and if a bacteria is evidence of evolution, what has it evolved into? Bacteria? Not much of an evolution if you ask me, but you guys are blown away by it.

Increasing complexity can be seen in the fossil record. Evolution predicts the further up the strata you go, the more complex organisms you will find. Experiments with bacteria is not trying to demonstrate this. You need to read more to get a better understanding because right now, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Hoghead1]

If that is how you want to work, AV1611, that is fine with me. But in that case, you shouldn't be bringing up and commenting on sources and material that you had no interest in studying and know little about.

 

[AV1611VET]

If that is how you want to work, AV1611, that is fine with me. But in that case, you shouldn't be bringing up and commenting on sources and material that you had no interest in studying and know little about.

That door swings both ways, doesn't it?

 

[KWCrazy]

What you're describing is a negative mutation and evidence of evolution.

Obviously, the truth does not dwell within you.
Fruit flies were selected because they have a 10 day life cycle and only 4 chromosomes, so any changes would be easily detected. Radiation was used to increase the mutation rate by 15,000 times. Already experiments with fruit flies have spanned the equivalent of a million human life cycles but there has been no evolution. Messed up fruit flies? Yes. Sterile fruit flies? Yes. Benevolent mutations advancing the species? No. Remove the flies from the radiation after millions of generations and you have... wait for it.... fruit flies.

What the experiments over the last 80 years have proved is that there is no evidence of evolution, even with a 15,000 fold increase in the mutation rate. Causing mutations which are not found in subsequent generations free of radiation shows that evolution simply does not happen. So how did the evolution community react?
They lied about it. Just like claiming negative mutations are proof of evolution. I guess if you're dishonest, anything can be proof of anything. A tree falling in the forest is proof that the dollar is a better reserve currency than the euro.

You don't understand phylogeny trees and nested hierarchy works

Thank you for proving that you lack the intellectual capacity to engage in this conversation.
When someone claims that I don't understand biological classifications because I disagree with impossible, unprovable and untenable claims of universal common origin it becomes very clear that I'm dealing with a simple mind incapable of comprehending that others may have a different view based on different learning and experience.
For one thing, being an atheist means that you don't understand how the world works.
For another, you're in a thread about theistic evolution pushing your atheist version of evolution which has nothing whatever to do with the OP. It's called derailing a thread.
Regardless, debating this topic with atheists is a waste of time. They are seriously handicapped in that they see the world as a simple three dimensional puzzle in which things which cannot be seen, touched, tasted, smelled or heard in an objective, provable manner do not exist. There can be no common ground since they can't agree on the origin of the ground. They want all arguments on their terms. When you demonstrate that their BELIEF violates the physical laws they claim are sovereign they say they just don't know how such things happened yet. Anything that proves them wrong proves them right in their minds. Experiments which show abiogenesis to be impossible are hailed as PROOF of abiogenesis. Everything that disproves evolution is said to be evidence of evolution.
There's no common ground with dishonesty, and evolution is one of the more insidious lies of our time.

 

[lasthero]

Fruit flies were selected because they have a 10 day life cycle and only 4 chromosomes, so any changes would be easily detected. Radiation was used to increase the mutation rate by 15,000 times.

Do you have a link to the actual study you're referencing here? I can't find anything about it.

Thanks.

 

[lasthero]

I never made it past the first one; the peppered moth; a fraud long since debunked but still being bantered around by the dishonest

In what way was the peppered moth experiment a fraud?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Obviously, the truth does not dwell within you.

Are you going to present evidence that defend your claims or just hurl insults?

Fruit flies were selected because they have a 10 day life cycle and only 4 chromosomes, so any changes would be easily detected.

Yep. It's an easy experiment for evolution.

Radiation was used to increase the mutation rate by 15,000 times. Already experiments with fruit flies have spanned the equivalent of a million human life cycles but there has been no evolution.

Are you referring to a 1927 study by Hermann Muller. You know this is not the only experiment that has been done. For example, Diane Dodd isolated fruit flies in different environments and different food sources to test the idea that geographic isolation is an important step in speciation. After many generations it was shown that starch flies preferred to mate with other starch flies and maltose flies preferred to mate with other maltose flies. This confirming the prediction that geographic isolation can drive speciation.

Can you explain what you are expecting to see with these experiments? It will go a long way to determining if you understand evolution. So, please explain what it is exactly you think you should see?

What the experiments over the last 80 years have proved is that there is no evidence of evolution, even with a 15,000 fold increase in the mutation rate.

You do realize, experiments are not limited to fruit flies, right?
Can you explain this: If chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23 pairs and I predict when we look at the human genome and find a fused chromosome in human chromosome #2, what does that explain. What do you conclude here?

Can you explain this: Of the 203,000 endogenous retroviruses found in humans only 85 are not found in chimps. What conclusion can you make from this. Here is the paper where that # comes from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

Thank you for proving that you lack the intellectual capacity to engage in this conversation.

When you don't show a basic understanding of a scientific theory, I will mention it. This hostility is not necessary from you KW.

When someone claims that I don't understand biological classifications because I disagree with impossible, unprovable and untenable claims of universal common origin it becomes very clear that I'm dealing with a simple mind incapable of comprehending that others may have a different view based on different learning and experience.

Instead of childishly throwing attacks at me, could you please show that you understand what phylogeny is?
All the evidence that modern DNA and genetics has come up with overwhelmingly points to common ancestry. If you are coming to a different conclusion, then you need to write a paper and submit it for peer review. Then collect your Nobel Prize. Are you saying you are smarter than scientists who dedicated 13 years to the human genome project?

Please, KW. You have to demonstrate some sort of understanding of evolution. Hand waving it away and claiming it's all wrong isn't going to make you right.

For one thing, being an atheist means that you don't understand how the world works.

Another attack on someone's character. Please stop this. It's childish.

Regardless, debating this topic with atheists is a waste of time. They are seriously handicapped in that they see the world as a simple three dimensional puzzle in which things which cannot be seen, touched, tasted, smelled or heard in an objective, provable manner do not exist.

Another attack. This seems to be the only thing you're capable of doing here. If you want to engage in a real discussion, then please address the evidence instead of hand waving it away and shouting insults.

If something cannot be seen, touched, tasted, smelled or heard in a testable way then it is by definition, imaginary. I have no reason to believe it exists.

When you demonstrate that their BELIEF violates the physical laws they claim are sovereign they say they just don't know how such things happened yet.

Which physical laws violates evolution? Also, it's not a belief. We've already established that. You can keep saying it, it still won't be true, no matter how much you want it to be.

Experiments which show abiogenesis to be impossible are hailed as PROOF of abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis are just hypothesis at this point. We don't know the answer yet. If a hypothesis is shown to be wrong, we throw it out and try again. It's how science is done, something you clearly don't understand. Do you know what would happen if someone had a ground breaking discovery about abiogenesis? They'd have scientists lining up wanting to go for the jugular and prove it wrong. Evolution has passed every test for 150 years.

How can abiogenesis be proved impossible if it's not even a scientific theory yet?

Everything that disproves evolution is said to be evidence of evolution.

What falsifies evolution? Just name one thing. Explain what falsifiable test you ran to come to this conclusion.

and evolution is one of the more insidious lies of our time.

Tell that to people working in medical research and you'll be laughed out of the room.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Do you have a link to the actual study you're referencing here? I can't find anything about it.

Thanks.

I think it's a study from 1927.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/timeline/1927_Muller.php

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is amazing how creationists will go out of their way to misunderstand simple experiments. The studies on fruit files never had a new species as a goal. The goal was only to see how mutations affected a species. The same goes for the Miller-Urey experiment. The experiment was never designed to make life ala abiogenesis. It was merely done to show if the building blocks of life, amino acids, could form on their own.

And there are cases of speciation, sadly creationists do not even understand this simple step.` Many of these people are intelligent except when evolution rears its head. Then their superstitious beliefs keep them from think logically anymore.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Then their superstitious beliefs keep them from think logically anymore.

The pressure of cognitive dissonance increases, and there are many possible responses. They leave to get away from the cause of discomfort; they change the subject to avoid the discomfort; they babble to confuse the issue; they hang onto a single nugget of information like a magic feather and become blind to everything else. One sees it in these threads over and over. It's sad, but at least we can hope that maybe some information is penetrating.

 

[SharkOfTheCovenant]

At this point, if someone doesnt "believe" in evolution it's because they don't want to believe. If you're not convinced by now, nothing will convince you. One thing evolution nay-sayers have in common is that they are more or less scientifically illiterate. They simply do not understand what science is, how it works and how it affects them in everyday life. These people live in a very, very simple, inconsistent and confusing world where the sole thing they seek out is emotional solice. Facts, data, proof, logic, abstract thinking including pattern recognition and critical thinking including step by step logical breakdowns of a scenario are all things they don't mentally possess. This is because many of them are in an average/below average intelligence range and they feel the truth simply doesnt serve them. So when someone brings up evolution they become fearful because evolution is a higher level of reasoning that they are not intellectually and/or emotionally equiped to recognize so they put up a wall, a confirmation biased barrier where they will only absorb information that suits their pre-existing point of view. Again, they don't want the truth, they want comfort, so they reject higher levels of understanding like evolution. Thats why arguing with these people usually doesnt work, they've decided they want to live a life thats 100% emotionally self fulfilling through submission, fear and servitude. They will go as far as to attempt to make science text books in places like Texas teach creationism and not evolution because they don't care about the next generations' literacy in math and science. They dont think those are valuable tools because their extremely narrow emotional and intellectual mind has concluded that that doesnt serve them, therefore, because empathy is a trait of a higher level of awareness which they lack, they think it can't serve anyone.

 

[AV1611VET]

One thing all evolution nay-sayers have in common is that they are more or less scientifically illiterate.

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

And just out of curiosity, are you saying the cure for sientifik ilerticy is knowing evolution?

Another words, all I got to do is be teached evolution and I'll be a sientifik begshot?

 

[AV1611VET]

And there are cases of speciation, sadly creationists do not even understand this simple step. Many of these people are intelligent except when evolution rears its head. Then their superstitious beliefs keep them from think logically anymore.

Well I need to run out and get me a copy of Evolution for Dingbats, so I can break through this superstitious barrier that's keeping me from wondering why my family album looks like it was taken at the San Diego zoo, don't I?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I need to run out and get me a copy of Evolution for Dingbats, so I can break through this superstitious barrier that's keeping me from wondering why my family album looks like it was taken at the San Diego zoo, don't I?

Thank you for supporting my claim.

 

[SharkOfTheCovenant]

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

And just out of curiosity, are you saying the cure for sientifik ilerticy is knowing evolution?

Another words, all I got to do is be teached evolution and I'll be a sientifik begshot?

Scientific literacy promotes understanding evolution. Understanding evolution does not necessarily promote scientific literacy.

 

[SharkOfTheCovenant]

Thank you for supporting my claim.

Lol!

 

[dougangel]

Lol!

Evolution is an unobserved science.
There findings things out about it. Many things are changing with more knowledge.
There are many unexplained theories and disagreements about theory between evolution scientists.
Therefore it's also an incomplete science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientific literacy promotes understanding evolution. Understanding evolution does not necessarily promote scientific literacy.

So can a person have a docterate in astronomy without knowing any thing about biologic evolution?