The first thing I read when coming onto this thread is a great number of young men getting very agitated in an online way about something they actually know very little about. And no getting a science degree does not make you an expert in this field. I am studying for my first year undergraduate degree of sociology at a local university, and if anything the more I learn about this human science, the more i learn that there is more to learn.
Absolutely.
I took classes in sociology, psychology, philosophy, mathematics, anthropology, economics, and more. I've learned to try to see all things in a framework of many sciences.
For those young men who think that evolutionism has it in the bag, can I remind you of two simple facts.
First, I'm not young.
Second, I've studied evolution, a couple of hundred hours of study, and lab and field studies (very simple stuff though, just observation and such).
A Darwin chased lizards to the waters edge in the Galapagos islands, and then remarked from their failure to go in the water when he grabbed hold of them (and cosequently cut their gizzards out) that they had yet to learn to go in the water. Having lived for generations in a closed system where the water was the barrier of their lives. But the point from a feminist reflexive perspective is that you cannot expect to learn anything valuable, much less scientific, which such brutal and flawed premises. This is actually an elementary rule in philosophy that i actually think that every pro 'scientist' on this thread would do well to study, in order to learn the basics of scientific knowledge, and where the founders of this thought came from. BTW it was the greeks.
I'm not sure what you're saying. :/
So one of the critical failings the young people, (men and women) on this thread have been making is the assumption that evolution is a fact.
Actually no.
I don't make the assumption that it's a fact. I know it is. I've studied it, and learned to understand it, and it's a fact to me now because the evidence I saw, touched, measured, calculated, tested... all proved to me on a level beyond anything else I've done. I saw more evidence for evolution than for God in class. I saw the connection between evolution, human history, psychology, sociology, economics, and more. All pieces fell into place. I don't assume it's trueness. I know it's true.
It is not. It is not. It is a theory, or a hypothesis if you will (btw both of those words are largely interchangable). Much as gravity is a hypotheisis, much as e=mc2 is one.
Oh, my gosh... You've mixed up the terms to a degree I haven't seen before.
The answer is simply: No.
And while we are on physics, do i really need to remind the people on this site that the founder of modern physics (Einstein) was wiithout a shadow of a doubt a confirmed Christian, who despite discovering some of the most stretching and revolutionary scientific principles ever known to man, excepted that that was not, could not, be the end of the matter.
Huh?
1. Einstein was not the founder of modern physics.
2. Einstein was not a Christian.
Just because Darwin (the one who used to like cutting up lizards,, and that is from his book On the origin of species) did not belief in god means nothing.
He was an agnostic. He didn't believe in a God, but he had his doubts, and he couldn't see any evidence for God.
Evolution was more or less accepted before Darwin. Darwin didn't invent evolution. Darwin's contribution was "Natural Selection." Before Darwin, it was believed that evolution was guided with an unseen force, but Evolution was already a science beginning to form.
Trust me, all of those greeks, from Aristotle to Plato and Descartes, did in their own individual ways. Do not believe that their founding sciences have been in any way outdone or superceeded by modern knowledge. We have the a-bomb, terrorism the arms race, the decimation of the planets fossil system and a litany of criminal deviance to thank the modern world for. And if we go back to five hundred years ago, they didn't even believe that the earth was round back then.
That's actually not quite true either. You're mentioning the Greek philosophers, well, then knew Earth was round.
What was hard to accept was that Earth was revolving around the Sun. Heliocentric solar system, that was the big new thing, not the spherical Earth.
This was a prevailing 'fact' which had prevailed for many thousands of years before that. Indeed to the beginning of time. In comparison to that your 'theory' of evolution is indeed a very premature upstart. Indeed I suggest you read some Marx if you want to learn about contempary political science. Only then will you be prepared to answer questions such as the west bank, the conflict of the west and the middle east, and even begin to query the true reasons for both of our world wars in the last century. Science is such a complicated and deep philosophy, the minute some of you begin to bring out their high horses and your know it all castigating synomyns I begin to pity, i really do.
Marx. Bah. One of many philosophers.
