Reply to comment

During the last class discussion we touched on the idea of Darwin's theory of evolution being like a universal acid, but I am not so sure that I buy that. I don't think that Darwin's theory overshadows all the previous theories and stories that are out there. I think that it can co-exsist with some of them and also just because it is currently backed up by scientific fact doesn't mean that is a more definite answer to the question. I mean what is a fact really. How can that truly be defined? I believe that we tried to define it earlier in the semester, but I was not satisfied with what was brought up. I think that Creationism can be just as valid an explanation for the past as Darwin's theory though I don't particular advocate it myself. I gues I find Dennett's condemnation of the ideas outside of Darwin's kind of horrible. No one person should be declared more correct than another person. Back to my original point, I think that relating Darwin's evolution to a universal acid is just not an acurate metaphor.