“The therory”
The what?
“of evolution IS based on Darwins”
How many Darwins?
“written therories,”
Written what?
“and yes motive is ALWAYS a factor when someone says or writes some...”
Are you charged extra for, like, commas?
“If you hate God and you set out to prove he doesn't exist, yes your motives color you findings.”
If I SET OUT to disprove God, then that’s not my motive that’s my stated goal.
But science doesn’t disprove gods. It’s silent, neutral on the supernatural.
"For you to say other wise is a feeble attempt at getting away of the facts.”
No, sweetie. I say otherwise because science CANNOT prove or disprove any of the gods.
I say otherwise because the observations Darwin made have been repeated. Verified and expanded upon. Really smart people know more about evolution than Darwin did AND a fucking LOT more than you do. And whatever my motive for submitting science, peer review will knock off anything that’s not supported by the observations I submit.
Imagine a cake from a bakery. The box is my motivation. I submit, for peer review, “THIS is a CAKE!” Immediately, a reviewer will point out that the box is not part of the definition of ‘cake,’ and it should be removed from consideration. As well as the price tag. There will be argument over whether the icing is or isn’t ‘cake.’ And the lettering may or may not be part of ‘cake,’ but certainly part of ‘birthday cake.’
But, anyway, science has attempted to establish process to remove bias, motives, band wagons, and soapboxes from the science itself.
