QUOTE(Jacina @ Mon 5th May 2008, 7:17am)
The way I see it is that we have 2 Theories (probably more but 2 "main" ones)
1. Evolution (and all its variants and whatnot)
2. Creation (and all its variants and whatnot)
Both are THEORIES both will probably NEVER be proved 100% (because doing that would require observation (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) ), both have some things pointing to them, and some against.
However Wikipedia only allows for ONE theory (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
I disagree. Mere evolution is descent with modification. That most or all extant species developed from a single ancestor is obvious. That random mutation and natural selection are causes of susequent variation is similarly obvious. That they are the
main or
only causes is not as clear.
What we can say is that there is no coherent counter-explanation at this time, other than the, erm,
deus ex machina of the creationists.
None of that touches on abiogenesis, really, expect by analogy: naturalism has worked well until now, so we can expect that this explanation is similarly naturalistic. There is of course no way to say that God didn't guide any or all of this change, but there is no evidence for it, besides the unauthored claims of scripture.
Even scripturally, Genesis is weak: not only doesn't the author identify himself, he makes no claim to have witnessed any of the events described, nor does he cite any chain of authority to this effect. It is as if people of the future came upon a contemporary book with really big letters which began, "Once upon a time…" and believed what followed, where it would be bad enough to assume that
we believed it.
Additionally, I see no reason to believe that either the Jews or Jesus took this story seriously, or considered belief in it an important part in religion, other than the fact of its inclusion in scripture…and do we have any idea who made that decision, or why?
This post has been edited by Proabivouac: