Subject | Re: Queen mother (of Britain) has died |
From | AC |
Date | 2002-04-11 19:00 (2002-04-11 19:00) |
Message-ID | <3cb5c014.51966844@news2.randori.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
Follows | Graeme |
Followups | Graeme (1h & 45m) > AC |
I don't think that speciation requires much in the way of specialized training. It may require that things be pointed out to the layman, but so does subatomic physics.GraemeEvolution is fact, just as gravity is fact. We may not always be able to
explain evolution or gravity to everyone's satisfaction, but that does not mean they aren't facts.The big difference between the two though, is that ANY schmoe on the street can observe gravity in action. Not so with evolution, which (to whatever degree it happens) happens in a way that can only be observed by those with highly specialized training.
It's when its supporters begin thinking of it as something intuitively obvious that no one could doubt, like gravity, or the sunrise, or whatever, that they're in danger of turning it into a bad religion.Something does not have to be intuitively obvious to be a fact. It was not obvious to anybody for thousands of years that the Earth circled the Sun. From the limited observational abilities of even the most learned astronomer, such a view would not have been immediately obvious. Alternate explanations of planetary motions were every bit as acceptable, because there was no way to falsify any particular theory. However, when people like Copernicus and Galileo came along, any other theory of the solar system became extinct (positions of certain Church officials not withstanding). I would not call Gallileo a practitioner of "bad religion" because his peers didn't believe him any more than I would call Richard Dawkins a practitioner of "bad reliigion" because there are people who believe biological evolution to be untrue.