I think the mistake most of us make is to think that evolution is science. In reality it is history. Scientific techniques are used to investigate it, just as scientific techniques are used to uncover history. But strictly speaking it is more like history than science. For example, science relies primarily on experimental validation. Evolution as well as a host of other so-called sciences, rely on the historical record. Here I am using history in the broad sense, not the narrow written record sense.

So anthropology, archaelogy, geology, etc., are not strict sciences. They use the data gathering method as does evolution. So the answer to the questions in the above post is that those aspects of modern life are a matter of historical record.

Besides, even if we think of evolution as a force of nature, which it is not, I would prefer that evolution created those mentioned aspects of modern life rather than God.

• Evolution is blind process. - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 17:33 UTC
  • Maybe you can help me, Alex - stormcrow - July 9, 2001 - 18:44 UTC
    • Throwing paint on almost perfect Mona Lisa portrait. - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 19:15 UTC
      • Pollock's paintings evolved - yanniru - July 9, 2001 - 23:22 UTC
      • Clarification - harvey1 - July 10, 2001 - 19:22 UTC
        • Thanks a lot for correction. - alexander - July 10, 2001 - 20:18 UTC
    • We don't know - harvey1 - July 9, 2001 - 22:06 UTC