58
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 22:
Line 22: − +
Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God? (view source)
Revision as of 11:45, April 27, 2007
, 11:45, April 27, 2007indent
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 14:28, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 14:28, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Felix, thanks. I understand what you're saying and of course you are right - but I still maintain that nothing is "more evolved" in the sense of the original question. Obviously the original question is yours so we are at cross-purposes here. The only sense in which "God" might be involved in evolution is if evolution were in fact leading to a predefined "ideal" species, which creationists believe to be homo sapiens. I don't think you or I believe that to be the case - and creationists (here at least) reject evolution, let alone natural selection, as the cause of the variety of species. So it's rather moot. Apologies for my contrariness, I can't help it I'm afraid. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:Felix, thanks. I understand what you're saying and of course you are right - but I still maintain that nothing is "more evolved" in the sense of the original question. Obviously the original question is yours so we are at cross-purposes here. The only sense in which "God" might be involved in evolution is if evolution were in fact leading to a predefined "ideal" species, which creationists believe to be homo sapiens. I don't think you or I believe that to be the case - and creationists (here at least) reject evolution, let alone natural selection, as the cause of the variety of species. So it's rather moot. Apologies for my contrariness, I can't help it I'm afraid. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)