Just to quote some key lines that I have been saying as well:
No wonder schools don’t invite students to question Darwinism — not even the scientific community questions it! Instead, Darwinism has been treated as a sacred cow requiring protection. Darwin himself would have been appalled at the lack of scrutiny, the entrenched sense of conclusiveness and lethargy with which his theory recently has been regarded.The funny thing about questions, though, is that they can’t be repressed forever — and sure enough, the holes in Darwinism that Intelligent Design theorists, creationists and other independent thinkers have been pointing out are slowly being acknowledged.
Interesting word that, "sacred".
ReplyDeleteWonder what else might be "sacred" to some, but a load of dingo's kidneys to others?
It is as inaccurate to claim that evolution (not "Darwinism") needs a rethink as it would be to state that ID always adapts its views to fit the facts.
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/08/new_fossils_and_our_understand.php
Hi Metro :)
ReplyDeleteUh-oh, sorry if the term "Darwinism" is inaccurate. (Would i be let off the hook because i just linked to the story? :D )
Anyways, i think we ID proponents (who have varying levels of ignorance on evolutionism), were all thinking of "evolutionism" in that one or two articles...
But about the "rethinking": why not? i mean, what could hurt if a scientific theory becomes established and it turns out to be *really* correct? The Seedlings article and the Santa Fe guy and I are all just lamenting that science is not even doing its expected job of being open-minded and bringing a healthy dose of skepticism (to evolution). These are important qualities that are supposed to define scientists (**and ironically, what supposedly distinguishes them from simply believing ancient stories!**).
It's like remembering blindfolded Lady Liberty during a criminal trial. Maybe the defendant is a cute little innocent baby (or is he? hehehe, i'm just kidding). Maybe the baby has been put on trial everyday since birth. Arg, we say, can't you see he's innocent?!?! But let the judicial process take its course; besides, if we know the baby is innocent, then bring on the prosecutor's accusers and the evidence, right?
My point to that long illustration is, many scientists in my lab and all over the globe have been turning a blind eye in the same way that Lady Liberty does not stay blindfolded sometimes. Let the scientific process (including long-cherished, long-established and yes, "sacred" theories like evolution) take its course. If evolutionists are quite confident of its correctness, then why not let it be open for scrutiny and rethinking, **like any scientific theory should be**?
Thanks for commenting :) i also checked out the scienceblogs link; very helpful graphs; they do clarify that evolution is not disproven ;p (media's fault, ID-ists mistakenly attack, evolutionists retaliate...maybe ID and evol people should just unite against the media HAHAHA!) Still, i'm grateful that this gives me and **some** other people a chance to respectfully discuss ID, at least Biblical creationism :)
Thanks again and God bless! ^_^