Comments on: Defining evolution? http://darwiniana.com/2008/12/26/defining-evolution/ History, Evolution, and the Darwin Debate Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:16:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Timothy Birdnow http://darwiniana.com/2008/12/26/defining-evolution/comment-page-1/#comment-260855 Timothy Birdnow Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:47:44 +0000 http://darwiniana.com/?p=17442#comment-260855 We infer the evolution man, for example, and that seems an overwhelming conclusion, but when we try to assess just how that happened, Darwinism, at least, fails badly. For a simple reason: we can’t close in on the details of ‘how man evolved’. Excellent point, Nemo! One of the things that always aggravates me about Darwinists is that they DEMAND an alternative be presented or they will continue to use their theory. There is no reason we cannot say ``we don`t know`` and try to work out a theory which actually explains things. That`s done in science all the time ``why is the speed of light in a vacuum constant?`` We don`t know. Yet it isn`t allowed in the Evolution debate, because the Darwinists have such a vested interest in enshrining their largely mystical viewpoint. They insist that a theory be presented in full, or you are called a ``Creationist``. Yet they want enormous slack cut for themselves when they say ``we don`t know`` when parts of their theory is challenged. None dare call it hypocrisy. We infer the evolution man, for example, and that seems an overwhelming conclusion, but when we try to assess just how that happened, Darwinism, at least, fails badly. For a simple reason: we can’t close in on the details of ‘how man evolved’.

Excellent point, Nemo! One of the things that always aggravates me about Darwinists is that they DEMAND an alternative be presented or they will continue to use their theory. There is no reason we cannot say “we don`t know“ and try to work out a theory which actually explains things. That`s done in science all the time “why is the speed of light in a vacuum constant?“ We don`t know. Yet it isn`t allowed in the Evolution debate, because the Darwinists have such a vested interest in enshrining their largely mystical viewpoint. They insist that a theory be presented in full, or you are called a “Creationist“.

Yet they want enormous slack cut for themselves when they say “we don`t know“ when parts of their theory is challenged. None dare call it hypocrisy.

]]>