View Single Post
Old 12-02-2006, 11:07 AM   #4
rhertz
SBLive! Veteran
 
rhertz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,834
Rep Power: 216 rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future rhertz has a brilliant future
This is my take on the subject. The controversy surrounds the word "theory" as in "Darwin's theory of evolution" as opposed to proven scientific fact. Do you want evolution taught as theory or as fact?

Speaking for myself, I believe in micro-evolution as proven fact, but I still believe that macro-evolution (Darwin) is still a theory. There seems to be no solid evidence but only scattered pieces that lend support to a theoretical puzzle, but no conclusion beyond a doubt.

Personally I do not see it as very "scientific" to believe that "evolution" and "creation" are mutually exclusive of each other. In the famous words of Forest Gump, "Maybe they are both happening at the same time". Yes "Darwin Evolution" might be mutually exclusive of creationism, but maybe that in itself means that Darwin overextended his projections and assumptions all the way back to single cell live in the ocean.
rhertz is offline   Reply With Quote