(I'm posting this here, rather than in the thread below, because it really isn't a response to any individual post.)

I know that I said I would only post once on the topic, but after having now read all the posts on the subject, I would like to post just once more.

First: I would like to sincerely apologize to anyone that I offended by my post. I certainly did not intend to insult any individual here. While my words may have been ill-chosen, they were not meant to be deliberately inflammatory, and I am sorry.

Now I'd like to discuss gravity for a moment.

Gravity is the force that attracts us toward the surface of the earth. While "gravitational theory" is a common phrase, it does not imply that scientists have any doubt about the existence of gravity; it simply suggests that it is a discipline in which not all the details are yet understood (particularly on the subatomic level). I would assume that no one here would deny that the existence of gravity is a fact.

Religious people have no problem fitting gravity into their worldviews. If God created the universe, then God also created the rules that run it, whether it be the complexities of the human brain, the orbits of the planets, or gravity. There is nothing contradictory about such a belief.

Now imagine that a person comes up to you and says: "You know, I don't really understand how gravity is supposed to work, but I choose not to believe in it. Instead, I believe that the invisible hand of God literally pushes down on us from above, and that's what keeps us from flying off into space."

Don't just think "Oh, that's silly, no one would ever say that". Please stop for a moment before you read on, and consider how you would respond to such a statement.

This person's belief does not change the fact of the existence of gravity. If such a person chooses not to "believe" it, they are being willfully blind; they may as well believe that 2 plus 2 does not equal 4. It would not be a question of their opinion vs. yours, because gravity is not a question of opinion; the idea of "debating" a fact is not reasonable.

There are, of course, hundreds of places they could go to learn about gravity, how it works, how it was proven over time, if they cared to do so. But the onus would not be on you to "prove" gravity to them. If this person disagrees with the collective weight of the entire worldwide scientific community, then that person is the one who needs to present some heavy reasoning for doing so; if they choose not to even learn about the topic they are dismissing, then they really have no basis with which to claim that gravity does not exist.

Evolution is as much a proven scientific fact as gravity. If you doubt me, ask any legitimate scientist, or -- if the fact that the mainstream scientists of the world accept evolution's existence as proven is not enough -- read a book on the subject; there are certainly plenty available. That is why I don't see couching the subject of evolution as a debate to even be a legitimate starting point for the discussion.

By the way, one person suggested that the "debate" had come down to "Evolution is correct because there is no God, or creationism is correct because there is". (Pardon me if I've paraphrased; I couldn't remember who said it, and I didn't want to search all the posts again.) I don't remember seeing such a comment, but I hope that person wasn't referring to my post. In fact, I've made a deliberate effort in my two posts to hide what my religious beliefs (if any) are, because they are irrelevant to this topic.

I do hope this post isn't seen as inflammatory as well. My sole purpose was to explain, in as clear an analogy as I could, why it's hard to respond to someone who says that evolution is a fallacy.

-- Trip