1,660
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + + + +
Talk:Definition of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 19:08, March 27, 2007
, 19:08, March 27, 2007no edit summary
Some may say that we should settle on the correct definition, and stick with that. But I think that it is clear that several definitions are in common use. I would also like definitions that pro-evolution folks are happy with. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Some may say that we should settle on the correct definition, and stick with that. But I think that it is clear that several definitions are in common use. I would also like definitions that pro-evolution folks are happy with. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
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."
[[User:Palmd001|PalMD]] 15:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)