religion

[Non Quixote]

The sheer weight of scientific ignorance exposed by this thread is staggering. I suppose a lot of it can be blamed on the proliferation of "anti-evolution" sites such as answersingenesis.org that spread disinformation, create strawmen and post outrageous lies concerning the science behind the fact and theory of biological evolution.

For example:

• Confusing the casual use and scientific use of the word "theory".

A scientific theory is based on plentiful and coherent evidence, and while it may be modified, is accepted as the best current explanation of empirical evidence by a consensus of the scientific community. The Theory of Gravity is one such example, Electrical Theory another.

• Falsely claiming that any evidence of biological evolution must include observed speciation.

Biological evolution in its simplest form can be summed up in a single sentence: Changes in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. That this process happens is a scientifically established fact, observed countless times both in a laboratory and in the wild.

I could go on, but I'm not into building a wall of text. For a more comprehensive list of misconceptions and disinformation you can visit this site.

You can call science a religion, and I can call a dog a caterpillar, but it would not change the essence of either. Religion is based on faith and belief, while science is based on a coherent, falsifiable interpretation of empirical evidence.

Religion should remain within the purview of the religious community and science within the purview of the scientific community.

Failing that, if you want to argue against biological evolution at least take the time to familiarize yourself with the scientific fact and theory that defines it. Anything from Kent Hovind and company doesn't count. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]