On 6/12/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Most respected doctors used leeches to suck peoples blood to cure diseases > 200 years ago. Most respected astronomers, if not all, did not realize that > the billions of galaxies out there were not nebulae in our own galaxy, until > the early part of the 20th century. > > For any scientist to call evolution a fact (when the term is used to > describe the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter), is > blatantly unscientific.
I don't think many scientists call it a fact. I've seen it described in terms such as: -As close to fact as a theory can be. -One of the longest-standing scientific theories still existant. -An as of yet unrefuted theory, a theory in which all of the evidence to date merely confirms that it can be relied upon. Evolution is not used to describe the spontaneous generation of life. It's used to describe mutations in DNA code and the subsequent success or failure of such mutants to survive, replicate and pass on that code. It explains how life has moved from single-cell organisms to the huge variance of life on this planet that we see today. How life started may (or may not - I don't know) still be controversial among the scientific community, but the failure to present a viable theory as to how life may have started in no way refutes the fact that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity and adaptability of species. Picking examples of old theories that didn't stand the test of time in no way refutes that a current theory works. That doctors no longer use leeches (and leeches are making a comeback, BTW!) has nothing to do with whether the Theory of Evolution holds water... cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
