I know you were going to say that. "Hey, look, a planet! Hey, that means beyond a shadow of a doubt that I'm right and you're not! What do you mean, science? HEATHEN! WITCH! You burn now."
And Kas, what's your point? None of us know what happens once we die - you only assume you know. Basing your life on blind faith is pretty dangerous, I'd say - what if it turns out you're 100% wrong and God (should he, she, or it exist) decides to punish you for being an idiot?
Two completely seperate scientific views. Only reason they come up in regards to creationism is becuase Big Bang and Evolution are science, and Creationism tries to explain both with Religion.
big bang gets connected with evolution because therre are two sets of scientifi theories in politics
the ones that are actually scientific and fit together in fairly well structred view of what we currently know about the universeand seem to rule out the possibility of horseshit ridiculous thoeries about 7 days and such
an the ones that are horseshit ridiculous and invented by religious fundamentalists which contradict everythign in science while claiming to be scientifically justified
From what I've read, the Pope has already "endorsed" the Big Bang theory, supporting it as a potential beginning (or creation) of the known universe. For anyone who insists that the Big Bang and Evolutionary theories be tied together, the implication should be obvious.
Ironically he tends to more casually drop the "theory" half than most physicsts when the issue is discussed. He's happy as long as no one delves further back.
In any case, it appears that a number of the "faithful" have decided that theoretical science is indeed science, and worth considering. I realize that the Pope isn't to some branches of Christianity what George Bush may be, but really, it's important that you guys stay on the same page.
Perhaps my definition of species is different from that of most other people. If Long Latin Name 1 interbreeds with Long Latin Name 2 and sprouts Long Latin Name 3, yet they're both a Daisy yet the second has an off-orange center instead of a yellow center, all I see is a Daisy.
Now, if the Daisy was crossbred until it was a Tulip, and the Tulip turned into a Fern, and the Fern into a Maple... then you have Macro Evolution. Daisy-to-Daisy, Fruit-Fly to Fruit-Fly, Dog-to-Dog, species-specific, micro-evolution.
When I say evolution, I say cosmic soup to supercomputer, billions of years in the making evolution, not "Oh look this is a new fruit fly".
But then, maybe the study of Macro evolution hasn't been going on for long enough, the scientists probably don't have a long enough timeline to draw from where solid documentation was taking place. Maybe they just need some more time.
