People have all too easily forgotten that the whole concept of evolution was initially introduced by mystics, not scientists. The first actual use I have found of the term dates back to the German Romantics, long before Darwin. Of note here are Meister Eckhart and, later, Jacob Boehme. They, through personal revelatory experience, came to see God himself as evolving. ( Evolution Is Spiritual )
Nothing like that old time evolution religion!
Let's not forget that in order for a theroy to fall into the category of a Scientific Fact, it must be observable and proven to be true. No one has ever observed an "ape" evolving into a Man, nor has Evolution been proven to be true, nor has the missing link ever been found.
Science = 1)Proven Facts 2)Observable Data 3)Theroems proven to be true through experiments and overservations 4) 100% fool proof data which isn't biased towards one person's personal beliefs or prejudices. 4) Cannot detirmine value judgements 5) Cannot retain biased material towards one individual or group or idea which cannot be proven to be true in the scientific realm.
Religion = 1)One's beliefs about the Origins of life and the universe 2) One's beliefs in a supreme creator or ruler of the Universe 3) Usually retains zealots, and other members who are willing to defend their "ideas" 4) Doesn't have to be proven to be 100% accurate 5) Doesn't have to be observed 6) Allots some area of the ideas to be held by Faith, because it cannot be totally proven in the scientific realm. 7) Does not have to include precepts on morality, self-awareness, responsibility or accountability to be considered a religion.
What about the Supreme Court's Ruling on Creationism in Schools: They said that 1. The science must be observable and 2. Must be scientifically proven. If a scientific fact isn't proven, then its not a 100% assured truth. If it's not, which Evolution isn't, then It's not the scientific fact proven to be true which so many claim it to be.
No I haven't seen an electron with my own eyes, but I have seen photographs of them by electron microscopes and I know that scientists have seen electrons before. Science isn't about Truth? So I guess that means that Science could be false and not truthful and in other words it's irrelevant because It's not the actual truth its just our best understanding which has been wrong before and will be in the future.
If science is not 100% assured truth than that means Evolution isn't 100% assured to be true, so that means that all those at put faith into to be 100% true are nothing more than religious zealots, because by science Evolution hasn't been proven to 100% true.
Not true We can observe gravity every day, evolution from ape to man cannot be observed everyday. Your faulty claims about there being no evidence for a Creator are utter hogwash, the Universe itself and why life exists instead of nothing is evidence by itself.
Not so, We observe the same mechanism that got us from ape-like ancestor to Homo Sapiens generating new species every day. Did you miss my other post? The one where I said we use natural selection + random mutation to generate circuit designs and jet airplanes? How much more observation do you need?
True, But Those circuit designs in jet airplanes would not have occured if an intelligent creator/designer didn't actually design the airplane and all of its components and the circuit boards and everything else first. It can't just appear out of nothing. It's not that simple. New species are generating everyday? I don't think so, and just because by random chance a circuit rewired itself by random chance doesn't mean that apes evolved into humans, you're taking a giant leap of faith right there and making too many assumptions. As we all know, Evolution hasn't been proven 100%, therefore I'm not going to believe it until it has, and I'm not going to assume it's true simply because a circuit board wired itself by chance, which wouldn't have happened anyway unless there was an intelligent designer making it all possible, and actually designing the circuit board first.