Did you know that many tests that have so far been put forward in support of Darwin's theory have been accepted uncritically by all evolutionary scientists without checking the reliability? Did you know that the fossils do not allow us to draw any firm conclusion on the evolution of species? Why evolution has not yet found application in the field of medicine? And if Darwinism had become a mere ideology and strenuously defended his undisputed as an ideology and accept almost as an axiom of faith? And if intelligent design was much more than a hypothesis useful to people of faith? And if it was a theory that can explain the complexities of the living world, even at the molecular level, better than the "random mutations" postulated evolutionism?
How should ask the scientist to address these questions, whereas, at present, the evidence for Darwin's theory is overwhelming? It can be assumed that some of the above questions imply a wrong statement (for example, may not be true that evolution has found applications in medicine, as implied by the question) But if only one of these questions did not answer? We can "ignore" before the great success of the Darwinian theory? Or does it mean that there is something wrong with the theory? By how much? It 's more correct theory that explains half of the problem and leave the rest open to question or explaining 90% and is totally incompatible with the remaining 10%?
Charles Darwin - On the Origin of Species, 1859
0 comments:
Post a Comment