[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My entire point was that the "faith" involved in believing in science is wholey unequivalent to believing in religion. That was only one example of how the "faith" is in no way equivalent.

Ah, but they are NOT different. There is such a thing as science but it is a long, long way from providing a complete world-view. To fill in the gaps a series of myths have been erected over the past couple of centuries. Gradualist evolution is one of them.

As Andres said, the theory of evolution is based off of observed evidence, experimentation, etc. It is the model that best fits with the evidence and such, so it is the commonly accepted theory. If new accurate evidence surfaced that wholey contradicted evolution and pointed to something else, then the theory would be modified or replaced, as need be. Now take a religious example: creation. Creation is not based off of evidence or experimentation, it is based off of what [insert name of holy scripture here] says, period. If new accurate evidence comes out that contradicts the holy scripture, the evidence must be flawed. Religion is not subject to change of its major views in the way that science is. This is another part of how the "faith" involved in accepting religious and scientific views is wholely unrelated.

Gradualist evolution is much broader than the 'evidence' which is claimed to prove it. It incorporates some, some, observations of the real world, but it glosses over major gaps and in fact defines the issues in ways that makes proof essentially impossible in any practical sense.

Variation within species has been observed, yes. Evolution of one species into another has NOT been observed. And it cannot pratically be expcted to be observed, since it takes millions of years. How convenient.

The so-called 'fossil record' is so fragmentary that they're not even certain if they can identify species. They are usually talking about families (the next level up in taxonomy) when identifying fossils. And there are millions of years and thousands of miles between the examples cited in an 'evolutionary line'. The horse for example, is supposed to have evolved on Asia, Europe, and North America over 30+ million years. What is the 'proof' that these widely scattered, and structurally very different, fossils represent one line of evolution? The High Priests^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H experts say so! Oh, that's great.

See:
The Transformist Illusion by Douglas Dewar (DeHoff Publications, 1957)

This was bad enough. But in the Last few decades another branch of science has come up with outright contradictory evidence. Genetics is now advanced enough to compare the chromozones of various species and see how similar they are. It turns out that structurally similar species which have so-far been classed as related may have far less genetic similarity to each other than to completely unrelated (in the 'scientific' taxonomy system) species! The various species of frogs for example, don't have the same number of chromozones, let alone a high degree of similarity in genetic content in those chromozones.

Where does this leave the comparisons of fossils? All you have to go on in a fossil is 'gross anatomy' -- structure. Which is now known to NOT be related to genetic makeup. The 'fossil record' is now useless as any sort of 'proof' of evolution. We have no way of knowing the relationship of the various fossilized creatures that we find scattered all around the world.

Which brings us back to the problem. Evolution cannot be proven. Yet it is accepted, enforced even, by the modern scientific community. It's an article of faith, the new faith of Scientism. And as I said before, identifying the new faith as a faith and not a science doesn't mean I am a supporter of the old faith. This is not an either/or. It's a NOT.

[ March 15, 2003, 23:14: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]