From an email debate i was having with someone:
I could find you a list of scientists that say the world is hollow, that homoeopathy is real, the world is 6000 years old etc, but that doesn't change the fact that their ideas are unsubstantiated drivel. Until they have a clear framework and empirical evidence that not only proves their own theory, but disproves evolution completely at the same time then they don't have a theory, they have an argument.
Your insistence on calling it Darwin's theory simply illustrates the problem with people who insist there is some kind of academic conspiracy. This is NOT Darwin's theory any more, he was the first to publish a paper on it and that is why he is given admiration, but if he was to see this theory today he would not recognise most of it. Darwin was a man of the Victorian times, his ideas were noble and many were confirmed today, but he was also wrong in a fair number of his predictions, none of which matter because the theory is NOT dependant at all on Darwin being completely correct. Darwin simply drew a conclusion from the empirical evidence that was available to him at the time, the fact that the premise of the idea is now considered scientific fact and is supported by the summation millions of individual pieces of evidence, including types of evidence that Darwin knew nothing of at the time (RNA, DNA, Embryology) is testament not to Darwin but to the evidence it's self.
When you consider the millions of individual pieces of data that support evolution from many different and completely independent fields of study, including chemistry, biology, embryology, radioisotope dating, archaeology, anthropology etc compared to the frankly pathetically weak cases presented by opposing theories it is no wonder that Evolution is accepted by almost every scientist
Quote:Published Scientists have tried to speak their minds against Darwin's theories and got tomatoes thrown at them... so to speak. I have a list of these Scientists if you are interested in who is saying there MIGHT BE another explanation.
I could find you a list of scientists that say the world is hollow, that homoeopathy is real, the world is 6000 years old etc, but that doesn't change the fact that their ideas are unsubstantiated drivel. Until they have a clear framework and empirical evidence that not only proves their own theory, but disproves evolution completely at the same time then they don't have a theory, they have an argument.
Your insistence on calling it Darwin's theory simply illustrates the problem with people who insist there is some kind of academic conspiracy. This is NOT Darwin's theory any more, he was the first to publish a paper on it and that is why he is given admiration, but if he was to see this theory today he would not recognise most of it. Darwin was a man of the Victorian times, his ideas were noble and many were confirmed today, but he was also wrong in a fair number of his predictions, none of which matter because the theory is NOT dependant at all on Darwin being completely correct. Darwin simply drew a conclusion from the empirical evidence that was available to him at the time, the fact that the premise of the idea is now considered scientific fact and is supported by the summation millions of individual pieces of evidence, including types of evidence that Darwin knew nothing of at the time (RNA, DNA, Embryology) is testament not to Darwin but to the evidence it's self.
When you consider the millions of individual pieces of data that support evolution from many different and completely independent fields of study, including chemistry, biology, embryology, radioisotope dating, archaeology, anthropology etc compared to the frankly pathetically weak cases presented by opposing theories it is no wonder that Evolution is accepted by almost every scientist
.
