Did you or did you not cut the quote short? Did Darwin say that, as your truncated quote is lead to make you believe, that natural selection is absurd in the highest degree? And does not the rest of the quote contradict that? Is this not the same quote, and the same tactic used for decades by creationists in an attempt to show that Darwin thought natural selection was a hoax?
The answer to all of those questions is yes. That is dishonest.
You also embrace the theory as truth, you have said so yourself. What you think is apparently, that each species was created and then evolves within that species.
For that you would need to do a more in depth study of evolutionary theory, and nothing I can say would be enough to convince you as I am not an expert, nor do I have the ability to explain it as well as the professionals.
Intelligent design is just creationism repackaged and some of the stories like the talking snake removed.
FuzzNJ wrote:
Regarding the quote: I had read it quite a while back and when I found it on google it was in it's form as provided in my post. I wish it had the entire quote because as I later explained it actually supported MY stance regarding the world being flat (he used sun orbiting the earth, but same thing)
But you keep having difficulty regarding evolution vs theory of evolution.
The two are related, but decidedly different if only in scope.
And that is not a minor difference.
Creationism vs Intelligent Design
Yes, the two are similar, but ID removes the religious context and is therefore superior for this discussion.
ID also can be related to unintentional happenstance.
Here's a hypothetical:
Let's say that a meteor hit the earth and deposited small living creatures. And those creatures DID evolve into many of todays living things.
This flies in the face of the single major premise that seperates Darwins theory from Intelligent Design: life from the unliving.
It also dismisses an Intelligent Design explanation, for it was neither intelligent, nor by design.
Sure, it includes a great deal of evolution, so many in the scientific community would say it somehow "proves" they were right. But that is what I mean by "reverse engineering" to fit their preconceived notions.
I'm not debating whether evolution happens. It does.
But anyone who thinks that we know or understand the the answers is fooling themselves. For every hypothetical someone provides, for every concept about creation and the beginning of life or the universe itself, there are millions of other possibilitiest that we haven't thought of yet.
But in the meantime, we've got two main concepts.
And despite my scientific educational background, I have to ask: Who is the bigger hypocrit?
The Creationists who'd like to include thier beliefs and accompanying facts into the discussion?
Or the Dawin/life from the unliving crowd who refuse to accept any opposing viewpoints?
