by AgentR » Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:25:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HeckuvaJob', 'I')'ve always wondered how people who don't believe in evolution explain antibiotic resistance.
I suspect they utilize the "wrath of God" argument.
I do wonder about the phrase we often casually use though... "... believe in evolution". Is that a very good way to put it; if a better theory concerning the origin of life came along, would we reject it, because we "believe in evolution". (seemingly unlikely to be sure, more philosophical here).
How to describe, "I accept evolution as the most reasonable, useful, and accurate explanation for the origin of species, diversification, and adaptation" without implying an emotional or ideological attachment to the concept. I believe in evolution, about like I believe in ohms law or the theory of general relativity. They are useful in that they help me understand how something works, or help me build something. There is no spiritual or emotional consequence to discarding an old one, and taking up a new one.
Sorta like people and planets maybe? How many people are absolutely, emotionally attached to there being nine planets, and Pluto better dang well be one of them. Is it of emotional consequence if we do something sane like put rocky ones in category A, and big fluffy ones in B, and little ones close in C, and little ones way-way out in D? Or maybe just tolerate the 8 more historical bodies in a relic of a category, and save Pluto from being a nothing name in a list, to a real object, with real characteristics in a category that includes quite a few other similar objects?
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.