I'd like you to take a moment and read a few thoughts I had about your post. I am not, in this post, wishing to represent either side of the proposed
argument. Instead, I believe that without further explaination on a number of points, your question does not make logical sense.
I have a question for all the Evolution believers, and I call you that cause it is a belief and clearly not a science.
Scientists argue. They argue a lot. They argue about tiny things and they argue about huge things. For years, they were split on whether the universe
expands or whether it is static. They also argued about Fred Hoyle naming the big bang theory, the big bang. There are a lot of crack-pot scientists,
too. Yet, there is a majority who take theory and test it and those people are held in high esteem, not because they get everything right first go,
but because they never stop discussing, arguing, thinking and testing. These people argue over evolution. There are a number who do not believe
evolution is correct, but there are many who do. A scientist will not be published or believed, however, if they do not back their argument up with
factual evidence and plausible theory. My question is: how can you say it is 'clearly not a science' when so many truly brilliant scientists believe
it to be a plausible theory? Even the Vatican subscribes to a non-overlapping magisterium and permits evolution, so why is it clearly not a
science?
If evolution is correct how do you know right from wrong? If evolution is correct would it not be ok to rape and kill those weaker than you?
Survival of the fittest and all.
How does evolution have anything to do with morals and ethics? The theory of evolution is a passive mechanism by which species change slowly over
time? It is not an active mechanism that promotes anything. Those that reproduce continue and those that don't, die out. To permit any relationship
between human morality and natural selection would not be scientific. Scientists can infer that humans have evolved this way because we have developed
morals that do not permit murder and rape. However, permitting evolution to be correct does not mean removing the possibilty of a creator, beneficent
or reserved. My question is, how have different cultures, with different religions arrived at convergent points of morality? Why do other animals
display, from a human perspective, human-like morals about life and death? Why will a tiger appear to mourn the death of a cub if those attributes
that some ascribe to a gift from the creator are not present in animals?
If evolution is correct is it not right for America to conquer the world militarily and do away with all that Bush or whomever feels is
inferior and detrimental to the gene pool?
Again, what does this have to do with a natural mechanism that has been called evolution?
This was Hitler's philosophy from the start,rid mankind of the "lower" or "less evolved" humans and give evolution a jumpstart. Tell me
where he is wrong if evolution and survival of the fittest is the Law?
You've used quotation marks. Are these from Hitler's speeches or writings? You have confused an conscious decision by an human being with an
unconscious process by which species develop. If I can be permitted to step in to your confusion of terms, however, you have defeated your own
argument. Hitler was stopped. Thus taken to its logical conclusion your argument states: Evolution defeated Hitler. A megalomanical dictator is not
the fittest.
I would also say that if man can make laws he can change them to, whereas my LORD NEVER CHANGES
Again, wishing only to provoke a clear and unmuddled argument, the central premise (or 'law' in your terms) of evolution also 'NEVER CHANGES':
those species that are better adapted as a result of mutation survive and the others do not.
Of course, the details may change, but then so do the laws of Old and New Testements.