Darwin's 200th birthday is coming up, and for some odd reason, people still don't believe in evolution. This is 2009, people. Airplanes fly in the sky and we have landed on the moon. What's so difficult to believe that maybe we have changed as a lifeform just a wee bit over the last 4.5 billion years?
I'm a Republican and I believe in God, but I also stringently believe in evolution. The only reason it's still a theory is because we don't have a time machine to make it fact. It's high time that we yield to evidence and take it at face or near-face value.
And the evolutionary evidence is immense. We have fossils and living beings that go very far to prove evolution. Even the fact that we have opposable thumbs should cause some folks to question creationism! But, no, they don't want to see the obvious.
You know who doesn't believe in evolution? Osama bin Laden! Why? Because he believes that the Earth was created in seven literal days. We can at least say that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old, or are we unable to concede this obvious fact?
If we need any proof among the living, the breeding of dogs from wolves clearly show us how evolution could work. While in this case, it was aided by man, just a few thousand years caused such massive disparities in the canine world.
This is not like global warming, where we've just been studying it a few years. This has been going on for 150 years and is backed by fossils and current life. Climate change is yet mostly unknown and fluid.
This is NOT a satire piece. It's meant to say, please take a look at the evidence.
Also, if you need to search anything on Google, please use the bar below:
4 comments:
Hey Matt, I am a Democrat and I don't care if people believe in evolution.
Talk to you later.
Joe
Hey Matt, I wish schools would teach the truth - creationism.
I respectfully disagree.
Tim.
You don't differentiate in your article between microevolution and macroevolution. Some people believe that evolution takes place within a species but not between species. You look at the evidence and conclude evolution. I look at the evidence and conclude a designer. I don't accept your implication that those who disagree with you belong to an age before flight and moon landings.
Microevolution and macroevolution are semantic distinctions invented to claim a difference between "what's obviously going on right in front of me" (microevolution) and "what started before I got here and will continue after I am gone" (macroevolution). The only real difference is that "macroevolution" is what you get after "microevolution" has gone on for an extremely long time, "long" by the standards of an individual human's attention span.
E-in-Chief: you declare that creationism is truth. Evolution makes no such claim; it claims, rather, that it is consistent with observable data, and is capable of disproof (negation) if appropriate data are furnished. No such data have yet been supplied. The typical deduction claimed from Creationism is inconsistent with available data (fossils, radioactive decay rates and decay products, observed sedimentation rates, observed molecular biology, etc) and thus Creationism has been disproved as a rational scientific theory for over a hundred years. Creation may well embody a philosophical and metaphoric truth, but it is an insufficient explanation of observed reality.
Hey, Matt: I appreciate your posting to the Achenblog, and I like your blog here. However, spamming other people's blogs is obnoxious. Make a real post, not just a cut-and-paste of your headline and URL.
Post a Comment