link

PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said that teaching intelligent design -- which argues that life is so complex that it needed a supernatural creator -- alongside Darwin's theory of evolution would only cause confusion.

A court in the state of Pennsylvania last month barred a school from teaching intelligent design (ID), a blow to Christian conservatives who want it to be taught in biology classes along with the Darwinism they oppose.

The ID movement sometimes presents Catholicism, the world's largest Christian denomination, as an ally in its campaign. While the Church is socially conservative, it has a long theological tradition that rejects fundamentalist creationism.

"Intelligent design does not belong to science and there is no justification for the demand it be taught as a scientific theory alongside the Darwinian explanation," said the article in the Tuesday edition of the newspaper.

Evolution represents "the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth" and the debate in the United States was "polluted by political positions," wrote Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at Italy's Bologna University.

"So the decision by the Pennsylvania judge seems correct."

EVOLUTION CONFUSION

Confusion about the Catholic view of evolution arose last year when both the newly elected     Pope Benedict and his former student, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, said humans were part of an intelligent project designed by God.

An article by Schoenborn in the New York Times in July seemed to signal a Church shift toward intelligent design because it played down a 1996 statement by     Pope John Paul that evolution was "more than a hypothesis."

This triggered a wave of "Vatican rejects Darwin" headlines and attacks from scientists, Catholics among them, who argued that had been proved man evolved from lower beings.

Schoenborn later made it clear the Church accepted evolution as solid science but objected to the way some Darwinists concluded that it proved God did not exist and could "explain everything from the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony."

The Church, which has never rejected evolution, teaches that God created the world and the natural laws by which life developed. Even its best-known dissident, Swiss theologian Hans Kueng, echoed this in a recent book in Germany.

Schoenborn said he spoke up because he shared Benedict's concern, stated just before his election last April, that a "dictatorship of relativism" was trying to deny God's existence.

TENET OF FAITH

Pennsylvania Judge John Jones ruled that intelligent design was a version of creationism, the belief that God made the world in six days as told in the Bible, and thus could not be taught without violating a ban on teaching religion in public schools.

It was not science, despite claims by its backers, he said.

This literal reading of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, is a tenet of faith for evangelical Protestants, a group that has become politically influential in the United States.

Many U.S. Catholics may agree with evangelicals politically, but the Church does not share their theology on this point. Intelligent design has few supporters outside the United States.

While not an official document, the article in L'Osservatore Romano had to be vetted in advance to reflect Vatican thinking.

The Seattle-based Discovery Institute -- the main think tank of the ID movement -- said on its website that reading the Osservatore article that way amounted to an attempt "to put words in the Vatican's mouth."

In before the "Catholics aren't really Christians" posters.

heathens!  Everyone knows an all powerful being snapped her/his fingers and BAM... humans existed.

~Dg84

Oh . . . well I guess that settles it then . . .  

Quoted: link PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific. The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said that teaching intelligent design -- which argues that life is so complex that it needed a supernatural creator -- alongside Darwin's theory of evolution would only cause confusion.

This just in from all around the country....



(relax, it's hollywood speshul effects)

Quoted: In before the "Catholics aren't really Christians" posters.

No, but you will hear the DUPE and Welcome to Last Year posters.........

well...that's a shocker. Intelligent Design is not science...I never thought of it that way

Quoted: Well they're right. It's not science.  It's philosophy/theology. I don't know what the issue is lol.  They shouldn't teach it in science classes, but they should teach it.  You can't simply ignore a belief that most of the world shares.

Sure you can.

Otherwise we wouldn't have retained firearms quite this long.

Quoted: well...that's a shocker. Intelligent Design is not science...I never thought of it that way

What I've often wondered is what the ID people expect scientists to DO about the whole ID thing...if it's Intelligent Design, do they get to a certain point in their theories and then just throw up their hands and say "I can't figure anything else out so I guess God must have done this?"
That ain't science.  Science is figuring out how things happened and it doesn't involve bringing in divine intervention when you get to a sticking point.

Quoted: <snip> TENET OF FAITH Pennsylvania Judge John Jones ruled that intelligent design was a version of creationism, the belief that God made the world in six days as told in the Bible, and thus could not be taught without violating a ban on teaching religion in public schools. It was not science, despite claims by its backers, he said. This literal reading of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, is a tenet of faith for evangelical Protestants, a group that has become politically influential in the United States. <snip>

Regardless of what anyone here believes about evolution, this:

"intelligent design was a version of creationism, the belief that God made the world in six days as told in the Bible"

is not correct.  There's a term for the literal six-day people, but I can't remember it offhand.  While some proponents of ID may believe in the literal six day Creation, nothing I've read of ID suggests that belief is a central or defining tenet.


ETA: IOW........

Intelligent Design proponents != evangelical Protestants.

Quoted: ...Intelligent Design proponents != evangelical Protestants.

In principle ID is a thoughtful critique of evolution and its proponents need not even be Christians, but in reality nearly all of them are evangelicals.

Quoted: Quoted: ...Intelligent Design proponents != evangelical Protestants. In principle ID is a thoughtful critique of evolution and its proponents need not even be Christians, but in reality nearly all of them are evangelicals.

Agreed.

I was just calling attention to the mislabeling of sets which are not completely overlapping.

The article could have been more accurate by saying "a tenet of faith for many (or even "most") evangelical Protestants," but what can ya do?  Wish in one hand, shit in the other.......

the joke is that evolution is not science either...it can't be tested, it can't be proven, it can't be observed...

Quoted: the joke is that evolution is not science either...it can't be tested, it can't be proven, it can't be observed...

And WRONG.

We have many KNOWN species of man in the fossil record but we only need 2.

Neanderthal Man and Cro Magnon Man.

We know for a FACT that both existed. We know for a FACT that both made and used tools and fire.

One survived, one did not.

Two distince evolutions of man and natural selection in action.

Next.

Quoted: the joke is that evolution is not science either...it can't be tested, it can't be proven, it can't be observed...

wrong

correct, no scientific theory is ever proven.  They are just the best possible explanation for what we see in nature

wrong

Quoted: the joke is that evolution is not science either...it can't be tested, it can't be proven, it can't be observed...

Yep. Evolution is just a theory at best. Evolution has been going for a gazillion years and there are still weak creatures all over the place! I always laugh at the colored-moths example. The light colored moths didn't get pushed out by dark colored moths because of the soot's evolutionary advantage. They got pushed out because they landed on non-macthing background and got eaten. A light colored moth can always choose to hide somewhere or under something else because they have eyes to compare their coloration with that of the environment. It isn't evolution, it's common sense.

I can thank God that I can go to any part of the world and eat critters who have little/no evolutionary connection to me. They must be "accidentally evolved" to be edible to humans. I can also thank God that I can go to different parts of the world and find resources and creatures that I may harness that have little/no evolutionary connection to me. They must've "accidentally evolved" to be useful to humans.

Quoted: One survived, one did not. Two distince evolutions of man and natural selection in action. Next.

Their survival had nothing to do with natural selection. It was all common sense. One didn't move to better conditions or did not change their conditions for the better where they were. Both had the genetic potential for success, but only one got the job done.

Another example are panda bears. Are panda bears going extinct because of "natural selection" or "competition" from other bears for the bamboo? No, the pandas are just too dumb to eat anything else and today they just don't know any better.

Quoted: Quoted: the joke is that evolution is not science either...it can't be tested, it can't be proven, it can't be observed... And WRONG. We have many KNOWN species of man in the fossil record but we only need 2. Neanderthal Man and Cro Magnon Man. We know for a FACT that both existed. We know for a FACT that both made and used tools and fire. One survived, one did not. Two distince evolutions of man and natural selection in action. Next.

Can a scientist say with 100% certainty that we evolved from these creatures?  Can scientists say with certainty that these weren't simply another race of modern man that died out?  Can scientists say with certainty (discounting carbon dating or fossil layers, which are not completely reliable) that these creatures lived at different times?

I don't know the answers, but I think that probably an honest scientist could not be 100% certain about any of those.  Their theories are simply a translation of evidence they see.  It is not proof.  Evolution is still a theory.

The original poster was correct that it can't be tested.  Scientists must be able to test their theories, or they will forever be theories.

Quoted: ...Evolution has been going for a gazillion years and there are still weak creatures all over the place!

Which in no way disproves evolution.

I always laugh at the colored-moths example.  The light colored moths didn't get pushed out by dark colored moths because of the soot's evolutionary advantage. They got pushed out because they landed on non-macthing background and got eaten....

Which supports the notion of species changing over time to adapt to changing conditions through natural selection, which IS evolution.

A light colored moth can always choose to hide somewhere or under something else because they have eyes to compare their coloration with that of the environment. It isn't evolution, it's common sense.

But if things change so there are no longer any suitable light colored places to land, the light colored moths WILL get eaten and made extinct.

I can thank God that I can go to any part of the world and eat critters who have little/no evolutionary connection to me. They must be "accidentally evolved" to be edible to humans.

Humans evolved to be able to eat a wide variety of food because it has survival value.

I can also thank God that I can go to different parts of the world and find resources and creatures that I may harness that have little/no evolutionary connection to me. They must've "accidentally evolved" to be useful to humans.

God didn't invent the 1911 pistol.  John Moses Browning did that, using the same faculties that allow us to find uses for resources and creatures all over the world.  I can thank God for allowing us to evolve into the clever state we find ourselves us in now.  Clearly it had survival value in the distant past and it continues to benefit us today.

Quoted: Quoted: I always laugh at the colored-moths example.  The light colored moths didn't get pushed out by dark colored moths because of the soot's evolutionary advantage. They got pushed out because they landed on non-macthing background and got eaten.... Which supports the notion of species changing over time to adapt to changing conditions through natural selection, which IS evolution.

That is not evolution.  That is a specific variety of moth dying out, leaving the other there.  Both species already existed.  They didn't just appear out of nowhere.

Quoted: Quoted: One survived, one did not. Two distince evolutions of man and natural selection in action. Next. Their survival had nothing to do with natural selection. It was all common sense. One didn't move to better conditions or did not change their conditions for the better where they were. Both had the genetic potential for success, but only one got the job done. Another example are panda bears. Are panda bears going extinct because of "natural selection" or "competition" from other bears for the bamboo? No, the pandas are just too dumb to eat anything else and today they just don't know any better.

Cor Magnon REPLACED Neanderthal when it entered Neanderthals environment.

It was NOT an example of one living in a better envirnoment.

As for Pandas and moths, natural selection does NOT always select the best candidate. You seem to fundamentally NOT understand natural selection. It is not orderly or intelligent. It is just how things happen.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: the joke is that evolution is not science either...it can't be tested, it can't be proven, it can't be observed... And WRONG. We have many KNOWN species of man in the fossil record but we only need 2. Neanderthal Man and Cro Magnon Man. We know for a FACT that both existed. We know for a FACT that both made and used tools and fire. One survived, one did not. Two distince evolutions of man and natural selection in action. Next. Can a scientist say with 100% certainty that we evolved from these creatures?  Can scientists say with certainty that these weren't simply another race of modern man that died out?  Can scientists say with certainty (discounting carbon dating or fossil layers, which are not completely reliable) that these creatures lived at different times? I don't know the answers, but I think that probably an honest scientist could not be 100% certain about any of those.  Their theories are simply a translation of evidence they see.  It is not proof.  Evolution is still a theory. The original poster was correct that it can't be tested.  Scientists must be able to test their theories, or they will forever be theories.

Ummm ok. Yes we know we are from Cro Magnon. That is because Cro Magnon is modern man.

And they both lived at the SAME TIME. One replaced the other, although Neanderthal slightly predates us.

As for theories and 100%s it is POSSIBLE that dinosaurs built the pyramids. But that isn't what happened.

Quoted: the joke is that evolution is not science either...it can't be tested, it can't be proven, it can't be observed...

Evolution is not science??!!?    Put down the crack pipe.


It can easily be observed in viruses every day in the laboratory.

It can be tested, it is just not as EASY to test as newtonian mechanics, for example.

Of course it cannot be proven, which you would know if you had the slightest understanding of what science was.  

Doesn't mean we should just give up trying to explain it and go live in a cave.  The mere fact that it is a complicated process is what makes it great science.



If you want to decide to abandon science, knowck yourself out - but please don't try to convince the rest of us that you have the slightest clue what you are talking about.




ETA: Shouldn't this be in the religion forum?  After all, it is a news story about what one Christian organization says about the claims of other Christian organizations.  (Plus, it's a dupe )

Quoted: Of course it cannot be proven, which you would know if you had the slightest understanding of what science was.   Doesn't mean we should just give up trying to explain it and go live in a cave.  The mere fact that it is a complicated process is what makes it great science.

I'm glad you agree that it cannot be proven.  I agree that aspects of the theory are scientific.  Other "scientists", though, treat it as if it were a proven fact by teaching evolution as history and not as scientific theory.  That is what is wrong.

It should be taught as a theory (pros and cons equally), and other theories should be taught too, so that the person can make up their own mind.

What grinds my gears is that people say, "Intelligent Design isn't scientific, therefore it cannot be taught."  That kind of thinking puts scientists in league with gods.  Who are they to say that science is everything?

Teach evolution.  Fine.  But don't treat it as the end-all answer to life's questions, and teach other ideas too.

Quoted: Quoted: Of course it cannot be proven, which you would know if you had the slightest understanding of what science was.   Doesn't mean we should just give up trying to explain it and go live in a cave.  The mere fact that it is a complicated process is what makes it great science. I'm glad you agree that it cannot be proven.  I agree that aspects of the theory are scientific.  Other "scientists", though, treat it as if it were a proven fact by teaching evolution as history and not as scientific theory.  That is what is wrong.

No theory can be "proven" - that's not an opinion to agree or disagree with, it is a fact of how the scientifica process works.

However - lots of science has so much support that it can be taken for granted, and almost acheives the status of "Law" - like newtonian mechanics, for instance.  And even something as well-established as that, had to be "tweaked" by Einstein's relativistics, when we understood it better.

While some of the details of evolutionary processes (like gradualism vs. punctuated equilibirum, and things like that) are still being debated, the basic PRINCIPLE is extremely well established, and can pretty much be regarded as a law.

It is the theory that explains biodiversity far better than any other alternative (I don't know of any alternative theory) - so that pretty much allows people to accept it as - if not fact - very well established and robust, as a theoretical explanation.

brassburn got it. It isnt science and never was and shouldnt be tought as science or in a science class. But it should be tought, somehow.

I do not personally relish the idea of students being tought solely the evolutionary theory without any other theories or positions for them to think on. If a kid comes to believe that God created the earth, I want it to be because he/she weighed every option and came to realise the truth of creationism in his/her own heart. NOT because creationism was shoved down their throat as "this is the way it happend, no other possibilities are tolerated." Which is exactly what they are doing with the evolutionary THEORY right now. Teaching it as absolute fact and leaving no room for the students to contemplate other possibilities. Which is wrong.

Quoted: ...That is not evolution.  That is a specific variety of moth dying out, leaving the other there.  Both species already existed.  They didn't just appear out of nowhere.

They were two varieties of the same species.  Much more information here:  www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#moths

I'm wondering just what you think evolution is, if not the change over time of traits in response to changing environmental conditions.

Quoted: brassburn got it. It isnt science and never was and shouldnt be tought as science or in a science class. But it should be tought, somehow....

It belongs in a Communications Department course on propaganda.

Quoted: I'm glad you agree that it cannot be proven.  I agree that aspects of the theory are scientific.  Other "scientists", though, treat it as if it were a proven fact by teaching evolution as history and not as scientific theory.  That is what is wrong.

yeah like those other theories like gravitation, electromagnetism, etc...

damn those scientists for teaching science as science!!!!

WHEN WILL THE MADNESS END!!!

Quoted: brassburn got it. It isnt science and never was and shouldnt be tought as science or in a science class. But it should be tought, somehow.

Agree 100% - that what religion classes are for.

I do not personally relish the idea of students being tought solely the evolutionary theory without any other theories or positions for them to think on. If a kid comes to believe that God created the earth, I want it to be because he/she weighed every option and came to realise the truth of creationism in his/her own heart. NOT because creationism was shoved down their throat as "this is the way it happend, no other possibilities are tolerated." Which is exactly what they are doing with the evolutionary THEORY right now. Teaching it as absolute fact and leaving no room for the students to contemplate other possibilities. Which is wrong.

If someone wanted to present an alternative THEORY, I'm sure scientists would be all ears.

But theories specify processes, are testable, and are falsifiable.

Creationism and Intelligent Design, are not THEORY.  They are a story, but they cannot be falsified or tested, thus they cannot be considered as an alternative theory.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm glad you agree that it cannot be proven.  I agree that aspects of the theory are scientific.  Other "scientists", though, treat it as if it were a proven fact by teaching evolution as history and not as scientific theory.  That is what is wrong. yeah like those other theories like gravitation, electromagnetism, etc... damn those scientists for teaching science as science!!!! WHEN WILL THE MADNESS END!!!

All I know is Triceritops "might" have built the Sphinx. We can know for sure 100% that they didn't.

Quoted: If someone wanted to present an alternative THEORY, I'm sure scientists would be all ears. But theories specify processes, are testable, and are falsifiable. Creationism and Intelligent Design, are not THEORY.  They are a story, but they cannot be falsified or tested, thus they cannot be considered as an alternative theory.

First of all, evolution is unprovable too.  It cannot be tested.  We can only take available evidence and draw conclusions.  Evolution is only a story pieced together to try to explain what people see.  In that, evolution is just as viable as creationism.

Finally, this is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post.  You are placing scientists on pedestals with the gods.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm glad you agree that it cannot be proven.  I agree that aspects of the theory are scientific.  Other "scientists", though, treat it as if it were a proven fact by teaching evolution as history and not as scientific theory.  That is what is wrong. yeah like those other theories like gravitation, electromagnetism, etc... damn those scientists for teaching science as science!!!! WHEN WILL THE MADNESS END!!!

Those are theories that explain things that happen in our present world.  We can test those theories, we can reproduce them, we can look at them as they happen.  Therefore, they are a science.

Evolution is totally different.  It cannot be tested or proven or reproduced.  Whatever happened to the scientific method?

Evolution is a story put together by pieces of evidence, presumptions and biases.

Quoted: Quoted: If someone wanted to present an alternative THEORY, I'm sure scientists would be all ears. But theories specify processes, are testable, and are falsifiable. Creationism and Intelligent Design, are not THEORY.  They are a story, but they cannot be falsified or tested, thus they cannot be considered as an alternative theory. First of all, evolution is unprovable too.  It cannot be tested.  We can only take available evidence and draw conclusions.  In that, evolution is just as viable as creationism.

Good grief.

It is impossible to have a conversation about what is science and what isn't science with someone who doesn't undestand the CONCEPTS involved.

Evolution is a theory.  It has a lot of empirical support.  It can be observed.  It can be tested (but the tests can be tricky to design)

Creationism is NOT a theory.  It cannot be observed, it cannot be tested.  It has no empirical implications, and it cannot be falsified.

It is a STORY, not a theory, and it has to either be accepted on faith, or not.

If you want to believe in it - that's FINE.  Nobody is telling you that you cannot.  

But to try to claim that creationism is "just as viable" as evolution ONLY DEMONSTRATES that you do not understand the concepts involved in the conversation you are trying to have.  Using the scientific methodology that our modern world is based on, there is a definition of what a theory is.  Evolution meets that defintion, creationism does not.  It really is that simple.

The fact that you want the word "theory" to mean something other than its actual meaning doesn't change it.

There really doesn't seem to be ANY POINT to have a technical conversation with someone who wants technical terms to have whatever meaning they feel like.  

Finally, this is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post.  You are placing scientists on pedestals with the gods.

What the hell are you talking about ????  


I guess I am out of this conversation, because it has just turned from frustrating to ridiculous.


Again, I ask why this isn't in the religion forum?  

On the other hand, ID has no observational evidence.

The evolution theory came about as observation of different Finches Darwin found on various places, that differed from one another depending on the climate. It maynot be testable in human time since the altercation of physical characteristics may take years and years(think thousands), but the theory is at least based on observational evidence.

Quoted: ...Evolution is totally different.  It cannot be tested or proven or reproduced....

Evolution has been observed in laboratory experiments on a small scale many times.  The fact that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, and cockroaches to DDT, is evidence for evolution.

Whatever happened to the scientific method?

The scientific method is a way to search for truth by observation and analysis, e.g. of the fossil record, DNA evidence, morphology, etc.  There is no requirement that a phenomenon be observed directly.  Nobody has ever watched a star form or two nuclei fuse, but the evidence for those things happening is very compelling.

Evolution is a story put together by pieces of evidence, presumptions and biases.

How is that different from any other area of scientific inquiry?

Quoted: On the other hand, ID has no observational evidence....

And more importantly, no falsifiable hypothesis (i.e. no way to formulate a meaningful null hypothesis).  ID proponents sidestep the central issue of evidence for the existence of the intelligent designer itself.  If they were truly honest they'd say "We think God did it", which would put critics of ID in the untenable position of trying to disprove the existence of God.

Quoted: the joke is that evolution is not science either...it can't be tested, it can't be proven, it can't be observed...

congratulations on the 'dumb post of the day'.

Evolution:

MSSA-->MRSA-->VRSA


(I bet I scared a couple of people on the board that recognize those abreviations...)



In science you try to prove the Null Hypothesis--> For Evolution, that would be that the world was created as it exists now and there is no change in species over time.    Then you look for any evidence that proves the null hypothesis.  With Evolution, all the obtained evidence (fossils, etc) disproves the null hypothesis.  As such the Theory of Evolution stands until it is disproven (i.e.  the  Null Hypothesis is proven).  

AFARR

Quoted: Evolution: MSSA-->MRSA-->VRSA (I bet I scared a couple of people on the board that recognize those abreviations...)

Me!!

The fact that ID is NOT mentioned in the Bible is fact enough to see it is nothing more than a fabrication to partially explain why we share 99.9% of our genetic material with other primates while conviently ignoring the fact we are related.

This quandry has been ongoing since the Rh blood testing was observed in monkeys.  


ID is merely the snake charmers loosing some of their footing.  A planned surrender of a battle but not the war.

I think George Jefferson built the pyramids BEFORE he moved up to that mansion in the sky. In fact, my theory is that George Jefferson, JJ Walker and the janitor on Good Times were all instrumental in getting the pyramids built.... that's just my opinion.

thanks,
Ron

All evolution is, is mutations in the DNA.  A flu strain mutates in a way that made it immune to an antiviral drug...it EVOLVED.

After visiting the Roman Catholic utopias of South and Central America, I began taking what the Vatican said vewy vewy sewiously.

Quoted: What the hell are you talking about ????   I guess I am out of this conversation, because it has just turned from frustrating to ridiculous.

1. I keep forgetting where I am.

2. I keep forgetting to not answer these posts.

Glad I'm not the only forgetful one.

A noble move on The Vatican's part.  I am impressed.

Quoted: Quoted: the joke is that evolution is not science either...it can't be tested, it can't be proven, it can't be observed... wrong correct, no scientific theory is ever proven.  They are just the best possible explanation for what we see in nature wrong

Your post is misleading.  When a theory is proven it becomes law (see "Law of Gravity").  A theory is an idea that may or may not be true, but has not been proven or disproven.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: One survived, one did not. Two distince evolutions of man and natural selection in action. Next. Their survival had nothing to do with natural selection. It was all common sense. One didn't move to better conditions or did not change their conditions for the better where they were. Both had the genetic potential for success, but only one got the job done. Another example are panda bears. Are panda bears going extinct because of "natural selection" or "competition" from other bears for the bamboo? No, the pandas are just too dumb to eat anything else and today they just don't know any better. Cor Magnon REPLACED Neanderthal when it entered Neanderthals environment. It was NOT an example of one living in a better envirnoment. As for Pandas and moths, natural selection does NOT always select the best candidate. You seem to fundamentally NOT understand natural selection. It is not orderly or intelligent. It is just how things happen.

Steyr - that is natural selection.  Evolution would be Neanderthals turning into Cro-Magnon.

I am not necessarily a proponent of ID, but there is no scientific proof of one species evolving into another, or even significant changes within a species.  No fossil record of elephants with short trunks growing longer over generations or giraffes with 2 feet long necks getting longer.

Natural selection can be proven.  It is going on even today as some species become extinct when others take over i.e. Brown Tree Snakes wiping out bird species in Guam.  

One species evolving into another is still a theory.  Once there is evidence that proves it, evolution would become a law.

Quoted: heathens!  Everyone knows an all powerful being snapped her/his fingers and BAM... humans existed. ~Dg84

Dude,

when a scientist considers virtually any natural phenomenon, he is unable to explain it entirely.

trust me, i studied fluid mechanics and material science in college.

here's some questions for you -

what did the world come from?

what did matter come from?

what did energy come from?

how can matter and energy be converted?

did you know that numbers don't exist in nature?  there is no such thing as "17 trees" .

numbers are nothing more than an abstraction, and exist entirely in the human mind.  how can that be?

your mind weighs 3 lbs yet it has more possible states than there are atoms of matter in the universe

did you know time is elastic, it can speed up, slow down and run backwards?

did you know that quantum physics is so weird that scientists refuse to believe that it actually represents reality?

where will you be in 2500 years from today?

tell you what, explain any of the above and you can be as snotty as you want towards Christians.

relatively speaking there is no difference between a modern scientist and a caveman.  they both know about the same amount of stuff relative to the amount of stuff there is to know.

the idea that you know something is the ultimate barrier to learning

Quoted: Quoted: heathens!  Everyone knows an all powerful being snapped her/his fingers and BAM... humans existed. ~Dg84 Dude, when a scientist considers virtually any natural phenomenon, he is unable to explain it entirely. trust me, i studied fluid mechanics and material science in college. here's some questions for you - what did the world come from? what did matter come from? what did energy come from? how can matter and energy be converted? did you know that numbers don't exist in nature?  there is no such thing as "17 trees" . numbers are nothing more than an abstraction, and exist entirely in the human mind.  how can that be? your mind weighs 3 lbs yet it has more possible states than there are atoms of matter in the universe did you know time is elastic, it can speed up, slow down and run backwards? did you know that quantum physics is so weird that scientists refuse to believe that it actually represents reality? where will you be in 2500 years from today? tell you what, explain any of the above and you can be as snotty as you want towards Christians. relatively speaking there is no difference between a modern scientist and a caveman.  they both know about the same amount of stuff relative to the amount of stuff there is to know. the idea that you know something is the ultimate barrier to learning

In the words of Dr. Harris, "When I got my BS, I realized I didn't know anything. When I got my doctorate, I realized nobody else did either."