[kahljorn]

Thanks pjalne that's pretty much what I figured.

I've actually read that Micheal behe thing because Preechr posted it and the first thing that came to mind was, "This guy doesn't understand the basic concepts of evolution".

"the fallacy of the negative claims is that pointing out unexplored areas in evolutionary theory does not mean credit should automatically fall on ID theory. "

I hate that. It's so hard to have a conversation with someone who thinks that, just because we haven't discovered every piece of knowledge in the world, the theory must be wrong. People like that are living in ignorance of the human situation, and the human condition. I mean, don't they understand that we are actually pretty ignorant compared to how much knowledge is actually out there? Why do they think we should be omniscient and instantly be able to present them with all the information they want without any form of investigation? Honestly, it just blows my mind that people are that unreasonable and ignorant.

I hate people who don't understand their situation, especially not the world situation. How can you be ignorant of simple things like that? It's the most obvious thing in the world. Luckily science ignores it and instead continues to accumulate evidence.

It really does seem to me like creationists are more afraid of their beliefs being proven wrong than finding the truth, which to me disqualifies their opinion in a scientific sense. If you think in terms of a jury, somebody who has a prejudice like that would be removed from the jury.
I wonder if evolution was actually developed explicitley to contradict the ideas of religion, though. I doubt it for some reason, I remember part of what tipped off the existance of it was actually an observation of two different situations and finding some "Common factor".


So how is evolution a sociological thing, preechr? I remember you saying that and finding it to be kind of interesting, especially with how richard dawkins felt about evolution and memeotics.