The Creationist/Evolutionist debate is really a false dilemma. Surely someone here has heard that there are two different types of truth. There is literal truth, demanded by the rigor of scientific inquiry. And then of course there’s poetic/mythical truth which deals with sacred texts, literature, poetry etc and address our sense of meaning and purpose. You wouldn’t apply the same standard of truth to a famous piece of literature that you do to a scientific investigation, would you? The same way you wouldn’t write a love-letter in the same language you would use in writing a scientific abstract. If you did that, you would miss the point entirely. The Creationist view was drawn from a literal interpretation of sacred texts. Sacred texts are rich in allegory and metaphors in order to convey meaning that cannot be conveyed in any other way. Science is great in as far as it is the most rigorous means of investigation every divised by humans, but it has its limits. Science cannot tell you how to live your life, how to find meaning or teach you right from wrong. You can’t read sacred texts literally, you destroy their message if you do. Darwin’s theory may not be perfect, but there is strong evidence to suggest at least part of it is correct. And until better evidence comes to light supporting some other origin theory, it is still the best explanation science has offered thus far. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be questioned, merely that you shouldn’t confuse literal truth with poetical truth.
First off Evolution is a fact. Just as much of a fact as the earth revolves around the Sun. This is not a debate in scientific fields and hasn’t been for over 100 years.
Silent Voice,
It seems you are extrememly ignorant on this subject. I would suggest that you do a little research. Richard Dawkins perhaps?
Can you actually give us a defininition of what you mean when you say “fact”?
Given the following evidence:
That bioengineers have been able to replicate proto-enzymes that are the precursors to a single-cellular organism.
That all living organisms(with the exception of viruses–who microbiologists consider being in the gray area because they only have RNA and need a living hosts’ DNA to replicate) have DNA
That as humans there is very little genetic difference between us and
apes.
The data from actual accounts of natural selection
Evolution is best explanation we have so far.
If we discover further evidence that better supports an alternative theory then we should revise it.
Facts are always be best available data we have available at a particular given time. The rigor of science comes from checking and rechecking such facts and interpreting them. It is not a telling criticism to call something that science comes up a theory. All of science is theoretical based upon the interpretation of empirical data.
I and looked into Richard Dawkins on the internet and this quote is right off his website: "Each individual has his own way of interpreting Darwin’s ideas. He[Robert L. Trivers] probably learned them not from Darwin’s own writings, but from more recent authors. Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong. Darwin if he read this book would scarcely recognize his own theory in it, though I hope he would like the way I put it. Yet, in spite of all this, there is something, some essence of Darwinism, which is present in the head of every individual who understands the theory. " world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins … tml#quotes
What Richard Dawkins says is as different from you claim that “First off Evolution is a fact. Just as much of a fact as the earth revolves around the Sun. This is not a debate in scientific fields and hasn’t been for over 100 years” as night is from day.
One more thing: if you are going to begin an argument “First off” that implies that you have at least a second premise after that first premise. Your argument has only one premise. In addition to that there is no logical relationship between your false premise that “Evolution is a fact . . .” and what you call Silent Voice’s ingnorance. Whether or not Silent Voice is ingnorant was not the topic of discussion.