[Reviewing Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species".]
This is a foundational work which started the whole Evolution landslide. Anyone who truly wishes to debate, refute, or otherwise understand the theory should read it carefully. Just as one should read carefuly, and critically those foundational works on Creation Science (A real science) and Intelligent Design (A true Scientific Theory).
29 comments
Creation science-it's a real science because it is based on such a wealth of testible, provable, and verifiable information; The Bible. Well, you got us on that one. (rolls eyes)
"This is a foundational work which started the whole Evolution landslide."I wouldn't describe it as a landslide, but it is one of the beginnings of the ToE.
"Anyone who truly wishes to debate, refute, or otherwise understand the theory should read it carefully."
That is EXCELLENT advice. One cannot debate for or against a theory one doesn't understand.
"Just as one should read carefuly, and critically those foundational works on Creation Science (A real science) and Intelligent Design (A true Scientific Theory)."
You words outside of the parentheses are true. The parenthetical additions are patently false and taint your entire post.
Sorry I've looked up Creation Science, it's like a wolf in poorly disguised syntethic sheep clothings.
Show me one useful invention, experiment, or bit of information that has come out of Creation "Science" or ID, and I might let you call it a science. It's not a likely scenario, but I won't rule it out.
Yes, just like we should use the original works on building helicopters. There is nothing quite like Leonardo DaVince's drawings when trying to build a Chinook, or the ancient ways to cure mental ilnesses (read: excorsise demons).
"Anyone who truly wishes to debate, refute, or otherwise understand the theory should read it carefully."
<< Can always count on David D.G. to steal my thoughts. Damn you! >>Redhunter: See you in heck, then!
<< When a fundie says 'true' or 'real', shouldnt' there be a patent pending logo next to it since the meaning is different on their planet? >>
Now THAT is a splendid idea, and you'll note that I didn't pre-channel this one.
~David D.G.
You know, that's actually not bad advice, if you leave aside the parenthetical asides and loaded language. I'd recommend following it up with some more recent titles on evolutionary theory, since the science has progressed significantly since Darwin's time, but Origin of the Species isn't a bad place to start.
I've never seen an argument FOR creationism/ID. All I've seen are arguments AGAINST evolution, and every one springs from a person who (1) misinterprets evolution or has no clue at all, and/or (2) says "I just don't believe it", as if that were evidence.
“those foundational works on Creation Science (A real science) and Intelligent Design (A true Scientific Theory).”
I think the Wedge Document is the only foundational doc we need familiar with. The whole goal of ID is to try to slip Creationism into schools, making straight up biblical teaching easier over time.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
