Quote:

I'm afraid what I'm saying now is another proof of the evilness of science for you. But anyway: No, when evolution were disproved by some observation one day, I am very, very sure that science would still not believe in creation. Instead, they would come up either with a modified evolution theory that explains the observation, or with a totally different theory.

Im not sure you understand the conundrum, if you came up with a "modified system of evolution" you would still have a form of evolution. My scenario proves the very definition of evolution false for the explanation of the emergence current biodiversity.

Noone denys evolution as it is defined among most scientists, this would be the definitive meaning of evolution. I dont want to have to teach you your own theory, but here is the DEFINITIVE definition of evolution. And by this definition you cannot just conveniently make up new "modified forms of evolution".Evolution is evolution.

Stunning paper by Dr Larry Moran--or is it Larry Moron??

We can easily prove that evolution is not responsible for the presence of today's biodiversity.

Quote:

I'm afraid what I'm saying now is another proof of the evilness of science for you.




Science and religion are certainly different things, but they are not opposites,and they are certainly not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

What is evil is that scientists prejudice leads them to deny hearing anyone who disagrees with evolution, which is an example of intellectual totalitarianism".



Science can be the new oppression in our world.