Hope,
But nor is it an alternative to creation, Maeght, as Professor Denis Alexander writes in his book - 'Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose?'.
Seems like an odd title. Why not, say, "Architecture or Morris Dancing: Do we have to choose?"
Evolution has nothing to do with "creation" (whatever that means). It's actually to do with speciation
after something exists.
The ultimate question isn't so much 'how' humanity came to exist, but 'why'.
No, it's not even a question at all if you mean "why" in its purposive sense. For that to be a meaningful question, you'd need to demonstrate first a sentient being to decide on the why.
Some here would argue that that second element is irrelevant; others wouldn't.
No, it's not
even irrelevant. It's just not a coherent question at all.
Unfortunately, it is never addressed in any way by the likes of Attenborough or Cox.
Presumably because the question is meaningless.
For them, the 'how' aspect of evolution is paramount.
No, it's not "paramount" at all - it's just the only show in town if you want a cogent, well-evidenced theory for speciation that has predictive power and that - so far at least - hasn't been falsified.
That is why I responded to ippy's OP in the way I did - people are being indoctrinated into ignoring the big questions.
Spectacular nonsense. There's no "indoctrination" because the evidence speaks for itself, and there's no "big question" when the question you attempt is just white noise.
Apart from all that though...
Oh, I'll say doodle-oo now I think because I have every confidence that you'll be true to form and just disappear for a bit now your position has been falsified.
