It takes more faith to believe in nothing than it takes to believe in an Intelligent Faller (IF)! Do you think science should be based on the consensus of humanist materialist liberal atheist scientists or on pure logic and reason which says there must be a God behind it all?
Asked by Anonymous at 5:08 PM on Feb. 23, 2010 in Religion & Beliefs
Answer by missbreezy214 at 5:13 PM on Feb. 23, 2010
Answer by NotPanicking at 5:17 PM on Feb. 23, 2010
God is based on faith, science should be based on experiments and exploration. I have no problem separating the two.
Answer by RyansMom001 at 5:21 PM on Feb. 23, 2010
Your silly question would be a better argument if a Law and a Theory were the same thing, but they aren't. Gravity is a Law. Evolution is a Theory. Intelligent Design is a hypothesis. That doesn't mean ID should be taught - it's not on par with Evolution. But that doesn't make it ok for you to make the same ignorant mistake by comparing Evolution to Gravity.
What she said!
Answer by beeky at 5:23 PM on Feb. 23, 2010
Answer by eringobrough at 5:59 PM on Feb. 23, 2010
Answer by thehairnazi at 7:47 PM on Feb. 23, 2010
Answer by Anonymous at 8:09 PM on Feb. 23, 2010
Answer by Anonymous at 8:17 PM on Feb. 23, 2010
"Gravity is a Law. Evolution is a Theory."
Nope, gravity is also a theory. Part of that theory is expressed in an equation. It is the equation which is termed a 'law'.
Parts of evolutionary theory can also be expressed as equations, such as the Price Equation.
Answer by Clairwil at 7:19 AM on Mar. 1, 2010