I was directed to a video the other day that shows Kirk Cameron talking about how he and his business partner have written a new 50 page introduction to Charles Darwin's scientific book, "On the Origin of Species". They have printed out thousands of these now tampered books and are going to pass them out free to college campuses nation wide in November. The problem I have with the introduction is that it introduces creationism. Even if I believed creationism to be true, which I don't, it seems pointless to pick a book about the evolution of man and other species to counteract the origin of the universe. If anyone has ever read this book, you would know that it doesn't delve into the creation of the universe one iota. So, my question is this, do you think it's OK to alter a book that has been a foundation for evolutionary biology for the past 150 years. If you think it's a good idea, let us know why you think they picked a book that has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. Have they not read the book? Or is it merely because the book is now public domain and it was the only well known science journal that they could use? Personally, if I wanted to debate creationism in the format they are using, I would have picked a well known book about cosmology. Here is the link to the video, if you haven't seen it yet. Any debate about this video is welcome.
scientific theory: To scientists, a theory provides a coherent explanation that holds true for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world. It has to be internally consistent, based upon evidence, tested against a wide range of phenomena and demonstrate problem solving.
scientific law: a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law
Religion: something you crap out of your ass and write into a book.
