CSflim -- you're not really being fair to creationists. It seems to me to be a valid point that there's a difference between evolution within a species and evolution between species. Not that I agree with them, but I don't like to see them unfairly ridiculed either.
The point in my earlier post was that, if evolution could not be disproved, it wasn't a scientific theory, for all that it might look like a scientific theory. Now, as Popper has shown, all scientific theories tend to undergo ad hoc adjustments to preserve the theory. But at the end of the day, they can in fact be disproved. But a non-scientific theory like Freudianism, or Creationism for that matter, cannot be disproved, no matter what new facts come to light. One should be, at least, very suspicious of these sorts of theories. And it's a valid question as to whether or not evolution is really a scientific theory. To those who don't know a lot of science, it's very easy to make evolution look like a bunch of guesses, altered to fit the facts every time they change.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."
"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
|