Actually, what I found most interesting in the article was that while
33% of Americans don't "believe" in evolution, 57% consider science
important (or was it "extremely" important?) And I'd add, even the
most fanatical creationists rely om the internal combustion engine to
get to their meetings, showing that being religious and (at least) the
use of scientic achievements don't rule each other out.
Geert
On Jul 13, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Rob Myers wrote:
There are healthy debates about some of the details but there are no
serious scientific theories that are alternatives to evolution by
natural selection. If there were they would replace evolution as
experiments and studies confirmed them. That's the beauty of science
when it works.
Science doesn't require faith, just one less philosophical
assumption than religion. The practice of science requires personal
drive and curiosity, and is subject to social pressures, but it is
the least worst means we have of acquiring knowledge about the
world. Art is a complement to it but religion has declared itself a
rival.
- rob.
On Jul 13, 2009 9:47 AM, "Olga" <olga.pana...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a very interesting discussion but I was hoping to hear some
alternative scientific theories. For what I know, and I know very
little on the subject, there are alternative scientific theories that
challenge the theory of evolution as we know it. Can anyone give me a
bit more information on those?
And also, I think science involves big amounts of faith as well...
--
Olga
http://www.ungravitational.net
http://virtualfirefly.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour
mailing list netbehavi...@netbehaviour....
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
