Do you accept it?
If so why?
I believe it is a most reasonable theory and I am inclined to accept it as the best explaination , certainly I place it way ahead of any scripture.
Scripture has it that God created all life and suggests to me that from the theists approach evolution can only be a non event.
That approach can only leave us with a proposition that in that moment where God created life he created, humans, dinosaurs, whales, etc...everything...now that seems to defy common sense for a start...particularly if one accepts that only a small percentage of all species that have existed exist now and that something like 99% are now extinct.
We must consider that extinction is the rule and evolution is the exception to that rule...and going the God route it does not even add up...one must ask..what is this God thinking...at best it can only hint that he had to scrap most of his creations suggesting a flawed creation and not what we could expect of a God.
The God way does not make sense via any approach if you think it through...and there is the problem as theists clearly do not think things thru...they read Exodus and say.. well there it is God did this and that but never stop to ask ..who wrote this? Who is this witness to creation? They can never work out there could be no witness and that the story is made up...who wrote "In the beginning...etc" is it not reasonable to demand the qualifications of this witness to creation...how far away was this witness from the action?
The only way you can work creation into the picture of various species is to have God creating stuff at different points in history but of course that is not what is written..so the God approach fails without ever presenting the notion of evolution.
So what do you fill this void of knowledge with once you are compelled to throw out the good book as useful for basic information..I am talking about folk who chose to think rather than accept a myth as fact because it is in the good book...Well the theory of evolution seems reasonable once you have taken time to read what it says...small changes over time that sees after a long time an animal much different to it's ancestors...I could not point to any particular point in all I have read upon the subject as being that thing that sums it up or convinced me in particular ... The material does not condense to a single sentence as may be demanded by the simplistic thinking that old Ray employs..heck I expect in a university course is not something dealt with in a 20 minute lecture. I could expect a year or two would be mandatory...Theists are generally simplistic and so their comments on stuff like big bang is "you can't make something out of nothing, I win, and I didn't have to even read a wiki entry"...and their simplistic evolution rejection, of course made without the burden of reading a wiki Link..."I don't come from a monkey or show me a crockaduck..." Appallingly stupid and totally uninformed. I rant about big bang theory but have been reading about it for twenty years or more and recognise that I am hopelessly uninformed ...yet a theist will read nothing upon BBT or The Theory of Evolution and pronounce both untrue..so ignorant they don't know how ignorant they are in the least...they are only accustomed to claiming as authority a text written by folk who did not know where the Sun went at night or of the existence of germs...such a non contest ...and as Q said you can tell immediately they have absolutely no idea whatsoever what they are talking about...I don't mean they are arguing finer points they just have no idea...you can say "common ancestor" and they think you mean grandpa I guess...no idea at all.
But how can you think when you are raised to accept stuff because it's in this book..when thinking is regarded as offensive...when questions as to why are met with.."it's all part of God's plan" . .. Jan I think about things..everything I read I question and certainly I have had questions as I read about BBT or The Theory of Evolution and can not give you the simplistic answer folk like you have been programmed to seek..
I note that now on two occassions you have not replied to my question re Darwinism v Evolution.
Alex