The debate we watched in class has thus far been
slightly comical. Ken Ham brings up a valid point when he states that we do not
have first-hand observational proof of evolution stemming from an
individual creature (although we have, in fact, discovered similar pieces like
mitochondria etc., but I won't get into that). The biggest problem I have with
his argument is that he claims that someone's religious beliefs can influence
and even be the reason for a scientific discovery. He makes it seem as if these
discoveries could not have potentially be found if the scientists had different
religious foundations. While as of now we have not seen Bill Nye's counter
argument, I am confident that he will be successful in proving his point. By
the way, who would have known that he has won so many Emmys!! #newfoundrespect.
With my extensive background in biology due to having taken AP Biology last
year, it is hard for me to believe that an entire globe with all of its plants
could have been flooded for an entire year and survive. I appreciate learning
of the other side's position, but as of now, I side more with Naturalism.
Ryan Pearson
No comments:
Post a Comment