Yipeee..party time

Disagree. Evolution is a religious philosophy, masquerading as "science". Plain and simple. There is no proof, just speculation, and a lot of missing links. Science is based on experimentation and repeatability. Show me the lab experiment that can be done repeatedly that will create a man from chemicals. It can't be done. You just BELEIVE that it happened. You did not observe it; nobody did. You can't repeat it. You apply your belief system to explain what you see. I apply mine. We all do. It is a logical fallacy to declare interpretations within the context of one belief system as "science", and within the context of another belief system as "religion". If it does not fall within the scientific method, then it is religion. Evolution does not fall within the scientific method. You believe it, and interpret within its context. It is a religion.

It has been my experience that people who use this argument are fairly unfamiliar with the material under discussion. Evolution is an ongoing process that operates on many different scales, and there is an overwhelming amount of information to back this up. We actually have observed it happening on smaller scales, and we have a pretty good idea of how it works on a larger scale as well. You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a biologist, with strong religious beliefs or otherwise, who would disagree with the concept of evolution.

Also, science is definitely not a religion. It is about observing and questioning, not about believing or having faith in anything. If an idea comes up that explains our observations better than evolutionary theory, scientists will adopt this instead. They will not cling to something if it doesn't fit with the data.

Kate, I respectfully disagree, evolution needs to go. All things that are discussed on this forum can be discussed without injecting evolutionary speculation into them. A fish's behavior, for example, is a phenomenon that can be repeatedly observed and reported; there is no need to inject an evolutionary interpretation, just report the behavior, and plan your fishkeeping in accordance with this repeatedly observable behavior.

People should be able to discuss whatever they like on this site as long as it is relevant to fish and scientifically oriented.

Ugh. Way to kill a thread.

It has been my experience that people who use this argument are fairly unfamiliar with the material under discussion. Evolution is an ongoing process that operates on many different scales, and there is an overwhelming amount of information to back this up. We actually have observed it happening on smaller scales, and we have a pretty good idea of how it works on a larger scale as well. You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a biologist, with strong religious beliefs or otherwise, who would disagree with the concept of evolution.

Also, science is definitely not a religion. It is about observing and questioning, not about believing or having faith in anything. If an idea comes up that explains our observations better than evolutionary theory, scientists will adopt this instead. They will not cling to something if it doesn't fit with the data.

People should be able to discuss whatever they like on this site as long as it is relevant to fish and scientifically oriented.

What exactly is this universally accepted concept of evolution? Actually I don't need an answer to that question, but it does bring out the problem in most evolution/creation debates. That is the argument starts with people on both sides assuming they are discussing the same thing. Seems like that rarely is the case. Many aspects and points under the general topic of evolution have been well documented scientifically. But to take it to the level of "this is how life began" doesn't seem so sure. In my mind the possibility of God being the agent of creation is not simply blind faith or belief, there is evidence to be considered though it still requires an element of faith. If God is indeed the agent of creation and science is trying to discover what is true regarding how life began and can only do that without considering God, it will take a miracle.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people, including scientists who are more then willing to stick with ideas that don't fit the data. I rather enjoy discussion of how evolution might fit in with fishes but understand how one might be sensitive to assumptions that everything that falls under the concept of evolution is "gospel" (sorry couldn't resist). Straw man arguments run rampant on both sides as well. So I generally take these forays with a liberal amount of grace. Even science can benefit when the pot gets stirred now and then.