1 2 3 4 5 6
That seems fine. Are you not a native speaker? Using "men & women", whilst politically correct, just seems silly.
it s seems silly , what should he use instead of men$women?
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
I'm a UK native English speaker, the phrase "Man created God not God created man" has a poetic ring to it; the meaning is unaffected if "men and women" replaces "man" but the phrase loses its poetry and honestly sounds silly to me if I say it out loud.

Was Alain's point that any organised human society will inevitably invent God(s) for itself, because societies that did not were at a disadvantage, natural selection driving the unbelievers to extinction. Would this explain our seemingly universal need to believe in some sort of creator.
So Darwin both produces the theory that replaces all the creation myths and also explains why so many creationistes believe them!
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
By the way, a number of authors are extremely skeptical of Darwinism, at least as a way of explaining the really big questions in evolution. Most scientists, even the skeptics, admit that Darwinism (or "neo-Darwinism" as it has been known since the 1940s) explains small variations within species very well; but it does not explain where the increase in information could have come from to change, e.g., a tree-shrew genome into an ape genome, or an ape genome into a human one. The field of information theory, and a relative newcomer known as complexity theory, cast a lot of doubt on the entire random-mutation/natural-selection paradigm. Try reading some of the works of the following authors:

1. William Dembski (mathematician): "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence."

2. David Berlinski (mathematician): various articles on evolution and the demise of the big-bang theory appearing in "Commentary" magazine over the past few years. One of them, "The Deniable Darwin," might be online.

3. Michael Behe (biochemist): "Darwin's Black Box: the biochemical challenge to evolution"

4. Lee Spetner (physicist): "Not By Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution."

5. Sir Fred Hoyle (astrophysics): The Mathematics of Evolution

6. Michael Denton, MD (medicine/molecular biology): Evolution - A Theory in Crisis

You might want to look at some of these websites:

http://www.discovery.org /

http://www.iscid.org /

http://www.designinference.com /

http://www.panspermia.com /

http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison /

Personally, I think Darwinism was simply the 20th century's version of a creation myth. Like any myth, it's fine to believe in it as long as you don't look at it too critically.
I have read Berlinski's polemic online. I find Richard Dawkins a very lucid advocate of Darwin, and find it odd to see him described as a "most prominent representative of ultra-Darwinists". Fred Hoyle was most famous for getting it wrong and then generously admitting it.I don't think his field was other than astrophysics and his later panspermia theories don't impinge on evolutionary theory. While searching Berlinski I found critiques describing his theories of intelligent design as crank science. Darwinism may not satisfy everyone, but it does not depart form observed reality.
That's a no. then.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Have read John Davison's paper Ontogeny, phylogeny etc 2000. It is drivel.
Show more