I recently watched the National Geographic "Was Darwin wrong?" and found it to be very convincing. One would think that the debate between evolutionary "theory" and "fact" should be over. I realize there is a lot of information that can not be disseminated in a 2 hour program but enough to get the mental ball rolling. I then googled Was Darwin wrong and there was a plethora on creationists attacking the conclusions but a dearth of scientific support for the show. So what gives? We need, at the very least, to get more vocal about evolutionary science maybe even to the point of insisting the popular media stop it's comparison on creation to science. I think there are enough like to start in the kind of campaign the creationists use, letter writing, boycotts, etc. So let's hear it.

Views: 93

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I skimmed through the National Geographic article written by David Quammen. I can't see where he presents any evidence against evolution, only theist arguments which are basically unsupported and biased ramblings designed to prop up the preferred theistic primitive writings. Possibly there is more in the documentary?


In any case, you can't go past Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth" for an in-depth discussion of the scientific evidence for evolution by natural selection.

I have read most of Dawkins" books. My point is that the creationists enjoy nearly unlimited support in the media. They have managed to seemingly co-opt the "high ground" in the argument between creation and science. We need to go on the offensive to show to the public that evolution really is fact and no longer to be associated with the word theory. I know that it should not make a difference which term you use but we are dealing with a populace that cherry picks terms based on ignorance. By using the word "fact" when discussing evolution we can possibly turn a corner towards better understanding. As history shows us, say it once and you have an opinion, say it a hundred times and it becomes truth. Maybe not an accurate quote but you get my drift.
Yes, I see what you mean. Theory is a scientifically recognised term that has a different meaning in the general population. I tend to call evolution a fact when discussing it with others and I think you are right - let it remain the technically correct term "theory" in scientific circles but let it be called a fact in the popular media.

It really isn't the theory of evolution, but rather, the evolutionary theories of the processes of evolution.  Evolution is a defined, measureable process - much like the process of metabolism.  There are, however, theories on the nature of specific mechanisms in both evolution and metabolism.

I have no problem with calling evolution a fact.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


Latest Activity

Chris commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
23 minutes ago
BenGee replied to jlaz's discussion Can rights to digital media be passed along to one's heirs?
46 minutes ago
BenGee commented on BenGee's blog post Is gravity weaker than magnetism (or electromagnetism)
55 minutes ago
Loren Miller posted a status
"SpaceX has pulled off yet another successful launch of a Dragon spacecraft and recovery of the first-stage of the Falcon 9. BRAVO!"
1 hour ago
jlaz replied to jlaz's discussion Can rights to digital media be passed along to one's heirs?
2 hours ago
Chris replied to Loren Miller's discussion The Playboy Interview: Richard Dawkins in the group Hang With Friends
2 hours ago
Loren Miller commented on Daniel W's group Quotation Of The Day
2 hours ago
Daniel W commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
3 hours ago

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service