1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: − + + +
Talk:Definition of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 19:18, March 27, 2007
, 19:18, March 27, 2007last definition is really philosophy and not science
There is a lot of potential here. The lefty thing is a bit annoying, perhaps because it hit too close to home...that being said and disclosed, it is not actually a common scientific interpretation as stated. If you were to add a pure atheist view of evolution, you might say something like,
There is a lot of potential here. The lefty thing is a bit annoying, perhaps because it hit too close to home...that being said and disclosed, it is not actually a common scientific interpretation as stated. If you were to add a pure atheist view of evolution, you might say something like,
:''Evolution completely explains life on Earth, with no need for recourse to supernatural causes. Evolution is amoral."
:''Evolution completely explains life on Earth, with no need for recourse to supernatural causes. Evolution is amoral."
[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 15:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 15:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
: Yes, the last definition is really philosophy and not science. I would exclude it, except that it really comes into debates about evolution. I just added a couple of references that say that unplanned, unguided, and random are part of evolution. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:18, 27 March 2007 (EDT)