Happily, You Tube currently seems less bigoted than social media services. Freedom of intelligent exchanges WILL become increasingly restricted toward the end - global, tyrannical government.
A most enjoyable talk by Dr. Behe. I agree, living systems are masterfully designed, far, far in advance of anything we can currently engineer. To deny it is plain ignorance.
Well then if you think God created living things how come we don't see the 'design' in none living things didn't God create everything? What makes one thing designed and other not if they where created by the same entity everything must have the same design qualities?
@@marlonrodriguez1169 So did God only create life and not rocks so that design is only present in living things? I am sorry but my all of my relatives are apes .
Filip Cordas Yes, just like Frank Lloyd Wright designed every one of his houses EXACTLY alike!! Right.....? Wait, can an INTELLIGENT MIND diversify in their artistic and creative endeavors? To answer ur question straightforwardly though, yes, all matter has the same design structure at the atomic and molecular level. Whether living or non, it’s all different arrangements of the same protons, neutrons, & electrons... 😃 God bless you!
@@zac3392 Well yes that is the point of the ' design paradox, what is different about life that you can make a distinction that it was designed then? Because Behe argues the there are two categories designed things 'irreducible complexity ' and things that are not irreducible complex. Remove all the Iron from the earth and life can't exist, so everything is has to show signs of it being designed, if everything has signs of design Behes argument is invalid. Again I not saying that God couldn't have created everything but if God created everything Behes case makes no logical sense.
It is design that enables the interaction of matter and energy to be consistent under various sets of physical conditions. Consider the structure: The properties and behavior of all forms of matter result from their subatomic structure. The properties and behavior of all the various forms of energy results from even deeper levels of structure. The properties of matter and energy present in each instant of space/time dictate the physical conditions and interaction of forces. Now consider: What intent decided the structures at each level? What foresight enabled the precise ordering of physical events in space-time to produce what we now continue to observe? What information was formulated and used to precisely order and combine each level of structural elements to produce the initial singularity? Without a Supreme Being you end up with infinite regression that leads nowhere 😀
@@ds525252 Tour and Meyer are frauds pushing the creationist agenda to gullible fools. I have no respect for them. We may have exchanged before, I do not keep track.
walkergarya I though we have gone over this before but maybe I’m wrong. To start from scratch. Here’s a 1 min statement if you have a moment. It will give you some info you don’t seem to have. ua-cam.com/video/UYcpzZF7LVo/v-deo.html
Lindsey Corum yes Behe is a great scientist and speaker. Check out Dr. James Tour and Steven Meyer. ua-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/v-deo.html
Walkergarya: I have always viewed materialist in the exact same way. They seem to have a dogmatic, almost religious, adherence to materialism. They rule out the possibility of design, prima facia.
@@vfisher86 YOUR HEAD IS UP YOUR ASS IF YOU THINK I AM GOING TO BELIEVE A LYING CREATARD MORON POSTING ON UA-cam IN PLACE OF PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS WHO DO REAL WORK IN SCIENCE.
Sorry, I really hate to criticize, because I love you and your work. Why no edit the screen visuals into the video and republish it in a better form?. As it is , it is too annoying to finish watching this!
Isn't it amazing how many of man's inventions are mere, crude copies of designs found in nature? And wouldn't the inventors want credit for their inventions, and wouldn't they be greatly insulted if someone claimed their invention just happened as a result of random processes? Even so, they would mock those who would give credit for the designs they have copied to an intelligent designer.
Isn't it amazing how many of man's inventions are mere, crude copies of designs found in nature? And wouldn't the inventors want credit for their inventions, and wouldn't they be greatly insulted if someone claimed their invention just happened as a result of random processes? Even so, they would mock those who would give credit for the designs they have copied to an intelligent designer. Nature does not have an intelligent designer, nature works through evolution to find "good enough" solutions so that the individuals of that species can live long enough to reproduce. When you have testable evidence for your "designer" you can assert that "Intelligent Design" has merit, but not before.
Interesting new ideas and insights to Darwin - who still seams to be right to me, just with another view in the probabilities rates of success / failure. I don't habe yet the impresssion intelligent design exists in the level of (nano-mechanic) biology - maybe on the level the universe?! Maybe, there ist even no god.
Why can't you give credit to our Creator? Put religion aside, but I thought you were a Catholic. Don't you believe in God? I believe in the Bible. We are wonderfully made, and credit goes to a Creator. You can't believe in evolution and God. I love The Mystery of Life video. If you went into a dense forest, miles from people. If you looked down and saw a toothpick, what would you conclude? Someone has been here before. Someone had to made that toothpick. Our bodies are AMAZING. Do people find it so hard to accept a Creator because responsibility comes along with it? Design by whom? The variety of life screams a Creator. Romans 1:20 "For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world creation onwards, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." Design is from God. A house needs an Architect.
From Lehigh University Department position on evolution and "intelligent design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
Can you please make me a living chicken from non organic materials . I promise to donate a million dollars to your university if you can. Pretty simple project for the scientific community who can design and commission the Large Hadron Collider or space stations or weapons of mass destruction .
Design is used to achieve a predictable outcome within the limitations of proper fit, form and function. And so, mechanisms and systems are not the result of chance because chance is unpredictable and thus unscientific. Whereas science is proven true by methodically achieving predicted outcomes, such as that which results in technology. If you can’t predict an outcome you can’t prove you know what you are talking about.
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday. Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.
if you're going to publish a video of a lecture, then for goodness sake INCLUDE THE SLIDES THAT THE LECTURER IS REFERRING TO!! So many completely unnecessary perspectives of the auditorium but no reference to the slides the man constantly refers to!! Totally amateur production without any grasp of what the word COMMUNICATION means!
What I mean by that is micro evolution is a well documented thing there’s no questioning that - there’s also tons of facts supporting common descent to a certain degree albeit with many holes needed to be fixed - however Macro evolution is unsupported by science in many many ways on many levels - particularly in speciation - species have a limit in how much they are able to mutate before going extinct and the only thing we can show that has had positive mutations on a macro level is in the bacteria sized life - nothing larger
Lastly - origin of life is in fact a part of Darwinism like it or not and we are further away from showing abiogenesis then we have ever been in the history of its study and is more and more scientifically showing design the more and more learn about how it could have come about
@@filmchronicles2498 whatever evidence based reality it is if it's not according to your word of God you will distort it just fit your religious sectarian view. Many Christians have no problem with evolution and science generally but you....There is no point in talking to a creationist.... you are interested only in spreading your narrow religious beliefs not seeking the truth ....I well aware of that. Have a nice day!
From Lehigh University Department position on evolution and "intelligent design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
From Lehigh University Department position on evolution and "intelligent design" The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others. The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
@jeremiah sams BULLSHIT. In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution. - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
@jeremiah sams The FACT is you are a liar. The Theory of Evolution has been tested thousands of times and been proven correct. You are free to make a further fool of yourself with continued denial of reality or you can shut up and go away.
![Lp. Последняя Реальность #107 РОДНОЙ ДОМ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3QKzKUlHM/mqdefault.jpg)
God is wonderful and I thank him every day.
Finally I've lived long enough to see the reality of God in our lives
All of your books are excellent. Glad to see UA-cam hadn't censured yet 👍
Happily, You Tube currently seems less bigoted than social media services. Freedom of intelligent exchanges WILL become increasingly restricted toward the end - global, tyrannical government.
Excellent, thank you.
I do wish the online audience could've seen the screenshots & screen those present in the church saw.
its been a real blessing to learn about Dr. Behes work the last several years.
A most enjoyable talk by Dr. Behe. I agree, living systems are masterfully designed, far, far in advance of anything we can currently engineer. To deny it is plain ignorance.
Well then if you think God created living things how come we don't see the 'design' in none living things didn't God create everything? What makes one thing designed and other not if they where created by the same entity everything must have the same design qualities?
@@FilipCordas you are dumb as a rock
@@marlonrodriguez1169 So did God only create life and not rocks so that design is only present in living things? I am sorry but my all of my relatives are apes .
Filip Cordas Yes, just like Frank Lloyd Wright designed every one of his houses EXACTLY alike!!
Right.....?
Wait, can an INTELLIGENT MIND diversify in their artistic and creative endeavors?
To answer ur question straightforwardly though, yes, all matter has the same design structure at the atomic and molecular level. Whether living or non, it’s all different arrangements of the same protons, neutrons, & electrons... 😃 God bless you!
@@zac3392 Well yes that is the point of the ' design paradox, what is different about life that you can make a distinction that it was designed then? Because Behe argues the there are two categories designed things 'irreducible complexity ' and things that are not irreducible complex. Remove all the Iron from the earth and life can't exist, so everything is has to show signs of it being designed, if everything has signs of design Behes argument is invalid. Again I not saying that God couldn't have created everything but if God created everything Behes case makes no logical sense.
This was Excellent! 👏👏👏 So glad my son & I were able to attend this at Living Word 👍
I am sorry that you are exposing your son to this pseudoscience bullshit. Why don't you teach him the Earth is flat while you are at it?
@@walkergarya you are dumb and stupid as a rock
Please, we beg for a version of this video where it could show us the slide presentation.
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!
It is design that enables the interaction of matter and energy to be consistent under various sets of physical conditions.
Consider the structure:
The properties and behavior of all forms of matter result from their subatomic structure.
The properties and behavior of all the various forms of energy results from even deeper levels of structure.
The properties of matter and energy present in each instant of space/time dictate the physical conditions and interaction of forces.
Now consider:
What intent decided the structures at each level?
What foresight enabled the precise ordering of physical events in space-time to produce what we now continue to observe?
What information was formulated and used to precisely order and combine each level of structural elements to produce the initial singularity?
Without a Supreme Being you end up with infinite regression that leads nowhere 😀
Excellent presentation. I will get his older books. Behe, Tour, Meyer a TRIPLE PLAY!
Behe is a fraud. He lies about his "Intelligent Design". He is trained as a scientist so he has no excuse when he call this garbage science.
walkergarya
How do you feel about Dr. Tour and Meyer?
walkergarya
Have we exchanged comments before? Your name looks familiar.
@@ds525252 Tour and Meyer are frauds pushing the creationist agenda to gullible fools. I have no respect for them.
We may have exchanged before, I do not keep track.
walkergarya
I though we have gone over this before but maybe I’m wrong. To start from scratch. Here’s a 1 min statement if you have a moment. It will give you some info you don’t seem to have.
ua-cam.com/video/UYcpzZF7LVo/v-deo.html
Insightful and entertaining as well as powerful evidence.
Nope. Behe is a proven liar.
Lindsey Corum yes Behe is a great scientist and speaker. Check out Dr. James Tour and Steven Meyer.
ua-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/v-deo.html
Excellent performance. Your Theory proves existence of God
For machines to function they have to be made, programmed, monitored or driven
Walkergarya: I have always viewed materialist in the exact same way. They seem to have a dogmatic, almost religious, adherence to materialism. They rule out the possibility of design, prima facia.
We have evidence. You have dogma. We win.
@@vfisher86 YOUR HEAD IS UP YOUR ASS IF YOU THINK I AM GOING TO BELIEVE A LYING CREATARD MORON POSTING ON UA-cam IN PLACE OF PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS WHO DO REAL WORK IN SCIENCE.
walkergarya
Evidence? as in transitional forms?
V. Fisher lol you really triggered that girl.
@@ds525252 Yup. Thousands of Transitional species.
Good presentation. Like his reasoning.
Sorry, I really hate to criticize, because I love you and your work. Why no edit the screen visuals into the video and republish it in a better form?. As it is , it is too annoying to finish watching this!
Good suggestion. Copyrights or other legalities may inhibit "broadcast" these visuals. Otherwise your suggestion could be a major improvement.
Thank you. Never thought of that. God bless you.@@edwardwalsh5477
Can someone please us give the Slideshow of this speech.
Thanks.
Show the screenshot..
Isn't it amazing how many of man's inventions are mere, crude copies of designs found in nature? And wouldn't the inventors want credit for their inventions, and wouldn't they be greatly insulted if someone claimed their invention just happened as a result of random processes? Even so, they would mock those who would give credit for the designs they have copied to an intelligent designer.
Isn't it amazing how many of man's inventions are mere, crude copies of designs found in nature? And wouldn't the inventors want credit for their inventions, and wouldn't they be greatly insulted if someone claimed their invention just happened as a result of random processes? Even so, they would mock those who would give credit for the designs they have copied to an intelligent designer.
Nature does not have an intelligent designer, nature works through evolution to find "good enough" solutions so that the individuals of that species can live long enough to reproduce. When you have testable evidence for your "designer" you can assert that "Intelligent Design" has merit, but not before.
Anybody that beleives they come from a rock they have some mental issues
Anybody that believes that they are the result of magic have some severe mental issues.
walkergarya So you have a serious mental issue since you believe we come from magic ?
@@gregsmith5134 No fool, learn to read, that is NOT what I said.
Interesting new ideas and insights to Darwin - who still seams to be right to me, just with another view in the probabilities rates of success / failure.
I don't habe yet the impresssion intelligent design exists in the level of (nano-mechanic) biology - maybe on the level the universe?!
Maybe, there ist even no god.
@norm1124 It seems like you have an open mind to the truth. What issues do you see with what Dr. Michael Behe said?
Why can't you give credit to our Creator?
Put religion aside, but I thought you were a Catholic. Don't you believe in God?
I believe in the Bible.
We are wonderfully made, and credit goes to a Creator.
You can't believe in evolution and God.
I love The Mystery of Life video.
If you went into a dense forest, miles from people. If you looked down and saw a toothpick, what would you conclude?
Someone has been here before. Someone had to made that toothpick.
Our bodies are AMAZING.
Do people find it so hard to accept a Creator because responsibility comes along with it?
Design by whom?
The variety of life screams a Creator.
Romans 1:20
"For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world creation onwards, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."
Design is from God.
A house needs an Architect.
From Lehigh University
Department position on evolution and "intelligent design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
walkergarya !!!?.! What? Do you think you have an argument with those quotes?
@@jean-marclamothe8859 This quote shows the level of scientific support for the intellectual fraud of Intelligent Design.
Can you please make me a living chicken from non organic materials . I promise to donate a million dollars to your university if you can. Pretty simple project for the scientific community who can design and commission the Large Hadron Collider or space stations or weapons of mass destruction .
@@geoffbowcher3189 Grow up fool.
@@walkergarya
Consensus doesn’t equate to truth. Look at merits of argument not popular opinion.
Design is used to achieve a predictable outcome within the limitations of proper fit, form and function. And so, mechanisms and systems are not the result of chance because chance is unpredictable
and thus unscientific.
Whereas science is proven true by methodically achieving predicted outcomes, such as that which results in technology.
If you can’t predict an outcome you can’t prove you know what you are talking about.
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.
if you're going to publish a video of a lecture, then for goodness sake INCLUDE THE SLIDES THAT THE LECTURER IS REFERRING TO!! So many completely unnecessary perspectives of the auditorium but no reference to the slides the man constantly refers to!! Totally amateur production without any grasp of what the word COMMUNICATION means!
This could have been said in a much more professional manner.
Evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly everywhere but creationists are blind to it. Talking science to a creationist is just waste of time.
Zaharia Chirica bet you didn’t watch the whole thing. Your mind is closed.
Depends on your definition of evolution
What I mean by that is micro evolution is a well documented thing there’s no questioning that - there’s also tons of facts supporting common descent to a certain degree albeit with many holes needed to be fixed - however Macro evolution is unsupported by science in many many ways on many levels - particularly in speciation - species have a limit in how much they are able to mutate before going extinct and the only thing we can show that has had positive mutations on a macro level is in the bacteria sized life - nothing larger
Lastly - origin of life is in fact a part of Darwinism like it or not and we are further away from showing abiogenesis then we have ever been in the history of its study and is more and more scientifically showing design the more and more learn about how it could have come about
@@filmchronicles2498 whatever evidence based reality it is if it's not according to your word of God you will distort it just fit your religious sectarian view. Many Christians have no problem with evolution and science generally but you....There is no point in talking to a creationist.... you are interested only in spreading your narrow religious beliefs not seeking the truth ....I well aware of that. Have a nice day!
From Lehigh University
Department position on evolution and "intelligent design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
From Lehigh University
Department position on evolution and "intelligent design"
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
@jeremiah sams BULLSHIT.
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
@jeremiah sams Oh and by the way, do not fucking lie to me.
@jeremiah sams The FACT is you are a liar. The Theory of Evolution has been tested thousands of times and been proven correct.
You are free to make a further fool of yourself with continued denial of reality or you can shut up and go away.
jeremiah sams 🏁
walkergarya what type of evolution are you talking about we have a few types.