Quote:
Originally Posted by RebelR
Agreed, I don't doubt that we have a common ancestor, and that similarities in DNA certainly suggest that. My beef is more in how the original statement was presented. Science likes to suggest in absolutes. But theories are not absolute. They are the best suggested explanation based on the current set of evidence. Should it arise that the method or the evidence is flawed, then the theory is either set aside or reworked. And you have to leave room for that possibility. It's healthy to ask questions and be skeptical. These days people are spoon-fed science and asked not to question anything.. much like in the past when religious leaders did the same.. and still do.
|
"Science doesn't know everything, if it did, it would stop!"
It's not a hypothesis that evolution and natural selection exist. There is a mountain of evidence for it. Look at the way dog and cat breeders can create new species for an example. This may be a forced method, but it proves the way in which these things can come about.
You say you hate the way science likes to deal in absolutes, I don't think it does until something has been 100% proven. It seems like you're trying to make science sound like religion, "dealing in absolutes" and "spoon feeding people".
Did you ever work on animals during science class? Or work on Kidneys, or see a heart etc in Biology? I'm just curious. It's not as if you have to rely on an old book alone as the reason to believe in a scientific theory. There is no "bible" to Science, is all I'm saying.
If you don't like being "spoon-fed" something, you can always learn things yourself, but it would take you decades to gather the same amount of knowledge.