On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:08:48 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/13/2011 14:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yep.  I personally think it comes down to the use of "theory" to
>> describe evolution.
> 
> Nah. That's just an easy target. If it was the "facts" of evolution or
> the "law" of evolution, people still wouldn't believe it.

True, but it's misusing the word "theory" to intentionally (or 
ignorantly, take your pick) mislead people.  Sure if it were 'facts' or 
'law' they'd find some other way to twist it.  There are some 
creationists who already are bringing into question some of the science, 
for example, regardless of the term used.

Just like there was a push a few years ago (maybe still going on) by some 
to demonstrate that carbon dating is wildly inaccurate and cannot be 
relied upon.

Jim

Post a reply to this message