The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his065/evolut80.arj/EVOLUT80.TXT

Text File | 1985-11-20 | 97KB | 1,901 lines

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(C) Copyright 1991 by the Religion & Ethics RoundTable of GEnie. All
rights reserved.  Permission is hereby granted to not-for-profit groups
to print this in its entirety AS IS provided that this notice is
included:

To sign up for GEnie, follow these steps:
1. With your computer and modem, dial 1-800-638-8369
2. When you connect, type HHH and press the RETURN key
3. The computer will respond U#=
4. You respond by typing the following:
 XTX99669,GENIE
5. Now answer the questions on the screen and you will be able to use
GEnie the next working day.   Have your credit card or checking account
number handy.
========================================================

Here follows the first creation/evolution topic on GEnie (that I know
of, anyway).  It wandered around a bit at first but once Phil got in
(at message 26) things picked up.

************
Topic 7         Fri Dec 30, 1988
M.BALES1                     at 04:20 CST
Sub: LIFE-BY EVOLUTION OR CREATION,OR BOTH

DOES SCIENCE SUPPORT EVOLUTION OR CREATION,AND IS IT ALL RIGHT TO  BELIEVE IN
BOTH?
306 message(s) total.
 ************
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 1         Fri Dec 30, 1988
M.BALES1                     at 04:26 CST

SINCE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION,IF TRUE,WOULD MAKE LIFE UNPURPOSEFUL BEYOND OR
DAILY LIVES,IT IS IMPORTANT TO SEE WHAT EXACTLY SCIENCE HAS AS PROOF,AND WHAT
THEY DO HAVE,SEE WHAT IT SUPPORTS.I AM GOING TO  THROW IN TIDBITS OF
INFORMATION FROM THE BOOK "LIFE-HOW DID IT GET HERE? BY EVOLUTION OR BY
CREATION?" TO ADD SOME RESOURCES TO LOOK AT. ANY COMMENTS ON WHAT IT SEEMS
SCIENTIST ARE THE MOST SECURE ABOUT IN THEIR THEORY?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 2         Fri Dec 30, 1988
NPC.ARCHIVES [Paul Chernof]  at 21:03 EST

M.Bales, why would the theory of evolution make life unpurposeful? Please do
not type in all caps, it makes your message hard to read. Since messages in
this topic sometimes get long, a long all caps  message is likely not to get
read. Reading all caps is like  listening to someone shouting all of the time.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 3         Sat Dec 31, 1988
M.BALES1                     at 22:12 CST

To believe that we got here by evolution would mean that we are not here
purposely but by accident.That is probably the reason why evolution  is
becoming more excepted by people who do not know what the facts
support,people like the idea of not having to answer to anybody for
anything.If we were created it was for a purpose.We need to know what that
reason and plan is and try to conform to it.And the belief in GOD gives us a
purpose,to worship him and  follow his guidelines and find out how we will get
back to that  original state we were in,perfect in paradise on earth.Sorry
about the caps, I get used to them and forget.
                Hay Bales
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 4         Sun Jan 01, 1989
LAXCPT [PATRICK]             at 00:51 PST

THANK YOU, M.BALES!!! (A little New Year humor)
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 5         Sun Jan 01, 1989
TOMSLAUGHTER                 at 08:19 EST

But what was God's purpose in creating us?  What is the purpose of God's
existence?  Why is worshipping God any more purposeful than worshipping  man,
women, the state, or the tree next door?   I repeat an earlier question--did
God create Humans out of a sense of existential angst?   Can the purpose of
existence be answered by pushing it up another rung?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 6         Sun Jan 01, 1989
ARNIEBELL                    at 20:11 PST

TOMSLAUGHTER:  You asked what God's purpose was in creating us.  Try putting
yourself in God's position:  You are the only thing/entity which exists, and
it's been that way forever.  What reasons would you have for creating people?

The best answer I can come up with is entertainment.  Creating a universe
might be mildly amusing, and creating plant life and lower forms of animal
life also might be fun, but that's all too predictable.  If you REALLY want to
have some fun, why not create beings who have the power of free choice?

You'd just never know what's going to happen next.  Or, even if you did know,
you'd be powerless to do anything about it.

M.BALES1:  God and evolution are not necessarily contradictory.  God's in no
hurry; He has all eternity to work with.  So, He need not create things by
going, poof, here's a dog, zap, there's a tree.  He could just as  easily
create through the evolutionary process.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 7         Wed Jan 04, 1989
M.BALES1                     at 04:57 CST

Tom: Your questions are some man has been philosophying about for ages.The
purpose of GOD's existence is of course not know,but relys on faith.Why not
stay on things we can comprehend,like why or how did we get here,which you
mentioned also.Why GOD created us was probably out of interest like Arniebell
said.Put this topic is not so much why did GOD create us or why do we exist
but finding out how we got here.And worshipping the person that created us is
a lot smarter than worshipping another of that persons creation,like a tree.
Arniebell:True that GOD did create us with the power of free choice,but has it
worked out to the best?And the thought of God not knowing or being powerless
is not reasonable for somebody that created us,is it?And Isa.46:9,10 shows
that he knows the future where it concerns his plans,but I agree that there
would still be enough free choice to make looking in on us interesting.
Regarding evolution and creation coinciding,it would seem like that would be
the easist way to do it.But do you believe GOD started it and nudged it
along,or do you think it started like the theory says and then GOD nudged it
along?What facts do you have for either way?Or does anyone else have any ideas
             HayBales
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 8         Wed Jan 04, 1989
ARNIEBELL                    at 22:34 PST

HayBales:  Let me rephrase...

Since God created us out of Himself, He is right within us, and around us,
everywhere.  So, surely He does know our thoughts, and what we are going to
do.  As to being powerless, God is powerless only if and when He  chooses to
be.  If God interferes with our freedom of choice by forcing us to be good,
then we have no freedom of choice.  Personally, I think that freedom of choice
is about the most precious gift God has given us.  God must remain powerless
in this respect, otherwise we lose that freedom and become little more than
robots.

God cannot even reveal Himself to us, because if He did so, we couldn't help
but love him--after all, He is Love Itself.  And if He did that, He would
again be taking away our freedom of choice by forcing us to love Him. So, God
can only drop hints and suggestions, and hope that we freely choose to give
Him our love--the one thing in the universe that God does not possess.

As to evolution, I believe that God created the universe and the mechanisms by
which evolution works.  If you believe that there is a God, it doesn't seem
too rational to say, 'First the universe started, and THEN God tweaked it via
evolution."  Of course, if you don't believe in God, then you have to find
some other explanation for why we are here....
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 9         Sat Jan 07, 1989
TOMSLAUGHTER                 at 16:43 EST

I do not feel that God created us for entertainment--I feel God created us to
have someone to love.  Because of the monotony of having nothing else exist,
God decided to do something.  The most interesting thing  was to love.  The
same decision remains for us--the best thing we can do is to love.  Loving God
and God's children is the best--the only-- form of worship for humans to do.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 10        Sat Jan 07, 1989
ARNIEBELL                    at 18:52 PST

I'm not bad-mouthing love, but take a look at what you've just said. "Because
of the MONOTONY of having nothing else exist..." and "The most INTERESTING
thing..."  Sounds like God was looking for a little entertainment!

But your comment raises a more important point:  did God NEED to create us?
Did God need someone to love?  And if so, does this suggest that God is
somehow less than perfect, with unfulfilled needs which require our presence
to satisfy?

In any case, love IS the key to the whole mystery of creation.  But who says
love can't be entertaining?

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 11        Mon Jan 09, 1989
M.RICHARDSO4 [dancing bear]  at 01:13 EST

Hey Bales (sorry I couldn't resist)

Why do evolution and creation have to be mutually exclusive? Why couldn't the
Supreme Being (I won't single one out I tend to be something of a paganist (?)
in thought, believing all the "GODS" are just as valid) have evolved us? Who's
to say he/she/it wasn't playing with a chemistry set one day and came up with
life then decided to see what he could do with it, hence evolution? (OK, so
I'm strange. You walk outside on a clear night away from city lights and stare
at the skey for a while and see what your mental state is!!!).
                  Dancing Bear

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 12        Mon Jan 09, 1989
LAXCPT [PATRICK]             at 02:20 PST

I agree w/Arniebell. Is it even possible for God to experience monotony?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 13        Mon Jan 09, 1989
ARNIEBELL                    at 18:33 PST

Isn't it logical to believe that God is completely familiar with all of our
negative emotions and feelings?

    (a)  If not, then how did He manage to create people who know these
         feelings and emotions all too well?

    (b)  If God cannot experience monotony, then at long last we've found
         something God can't do.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 14        Sat Jan 14, 1989
M.RICHARDSO4 [dancing bear]  at 01:19 EST

Tom--God created us to have someone to love?? I may not be the biggest
believer in any gods or goddess's but I have read the Bible. Take a peek at
revelations. This god speaks of hating some peoples and wanting to kill them.
Only a few will be saved from the final conflict. Everyone else, no matter how
much they believe, is up the creek. This loving god condems people to eternal
suffering for minor infractions. As I've read it even unbaptised babies, even
through no fault of their own are zapped into pergutory or limbo. Disease and
suffering are running rampant. Starvation is an everyday affair. War is a fact
of life. Maybe we aren't here for entertainment value but I don't think we are
here for god to love either. Don't get me wrong, I believe in some sort of
supreme being. If you have to place a name on it I couldn't tell you whether
it's the Christian god, the Wiccan Goddess or what. In many Christians eyes I
will be damned forever for my views or not views. So be it. I wouldn't mind
having a talk with the Christian god about all that is wrong and all the pain
and suffering that have been.

                       Dancing Bear

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 15        Sat Jan 14, 1989
RICKOLSON [Rick]             at 06:29 PST

Dancing Bear,  You apparently have not read very much of the  Bible, or you
have not understood at all what you read.  God did in fact create us to have
someone to love, and also made some rules about how remain in His good graces.
You say  "Everyone else, no matter how much they believe, is up the creek."
That is simply incorrect.  He has progressed through several sets of rules,
finally sending His Son, Jesus Christ to die for our sins.  In our current
age, all who believe in Jesus, who truly believe, are saved. Not only saved
from hell, but saved from the final times as foretold in Revelation.  As to
your comment on unbaptised babies, first, baptism is NOT a requirement for
salvation, second and more significant, babies and very young  children below
the age of understanding are saved or not saved based on the status of their
parents.  The Bible is not written in clear black and white, and must be
studied carefully and prayerfully to be understood.  No one will ever PROVE
that the Bible is correct, just as no one has ever PROVED that it is
incorrect.  Faith is the key requirement.  The most prevelant belief among
Christian Bible scholars today is that prior the the beginning of those
terrible times of war, starvation, disease spoken of in Revelation, Jesus will
come and get all believers, living, and those who have died, so they will not
be on earth at all, but will be the armies coming back with Jesus just before
the destruction of the world.
   I am not writing this to try to sway you or convert you, but to get you to
look again at what the Bible says.  You say that you  wouldn't mind having a
talk with the Christian God, go ahead.  He is there and waiting for you to
talk to Him.  Go to Him sincerely and ask Him your questions, make your
comments.  He will answer your  questions, not verbally, you will not hear his
voice, but you will know your answer when you get it.  Ask Him and He will
give you a  very clear sign that He hears you, a sign so that you will KNOW it
is Him.
                        Rick Olson
                        T G B T G

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 16        Sat Jan 14, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 13:50 EST

How can someone who believes in a perfect God conceivably state that God has
had to change the rules? How could God's rules EVER have been imperfect?
Dancing Bear: read an extraordinary science fiction story by Harlan Ellison
from around 1970: called THE DEATHBIRD, it was basically blackballed from
winning the Hugo award because of its view of God. -MW
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 17        Sat Jan 14, 1989
ARNIEBELL                    at 18:52 PST

I also have trouble buying the idea that a supposedly innocent little kid gets
sent off to hell because his parents are going there.

What is this, God's version of child care?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 18        Sun Jan 15, 1989
RICKOLSON [Rick]             at 06:36 PST

Who said that God HAD to change to rules, He did choose to change them
however, for whatever reason.  Actually, it would  be more accurate to say
that they have evolved.  Most obvious  is the change in what it takes to be
saved before and after Jesus.  Mortal man could not put their faith in Jesus
before he ever lived. - - As to the innocent kid, it may not seem fair to us,
but that is the way it is.  The results of our acts can come to rest not only
our children, but on theirs and to many generations thereafter.  Check out the
story of Abram/Abraham and his two sons Ishmael and Isaac in Genesis chapters
15 thru 21.  God promised Abram that he would have  a son, and from the son
have more offspring than there are  stars.  Abram and his wife Sarai were
getting old, had never had any children, and didn't really believe that God
would give them any.  Sarai suggested that Abram sleep with her maid, Hagar,
and have the son by her.  He did, Hagar became pregnant and gave birth to
Ishmael.  This was not  what God had in mind, and years later, Abraham and
Sarah (their names were changed by God) had their own son Isaac. Isaac went on
to be the father of the Jewish nation, Ishmael went on to become the father of
the Arab nation.  The lack of faith by Abraham and Sarah have impacted every
generation  since.  It may not seem fair to us that an innocent kid can suffer
for the sins of the parents, but it is a fact. It happens all of the time in
less spiritual areas also, if a couple go and hold up a store, get caught and
go to prison, the kids will suffer.  It happens in one way or another all of
the time.  BTW - if you read the chapters in Genesis mentioned above, you will
get an interesting insight into the Arab-Israel hostilities.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 19        Sun Jan 15, 1989
ARNIEBELL                    at 11:19 PST

God has never felt the need to revoke the basic laws of the universe, such as
gravity, magnetism, and so on.  I do not think it is logical to think that God
would revoke the laws under which His children are to be "saved".  It is open
to interpretation as to whether God might introduce a NEW method of salvation
(such as by sending Jesus), but that's no reason to assume that all the old
methods are invalid.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 20        Fri Jan 20, 1989
TOMSLAUGHTER                 at 19:38 EST

I am responding before reading closely all that went before, but here goes
anyway (whoever said that ignorance made me shut up?):  perhaps our
understanding of God's rules has changed, not God's rules.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 21        Sun Jan 22, 1989
M.RICHARDSO4 [dancing bear]  at 01:47 EST

Sorry about the kids but that's the way it is? Come off of it. With that
attitude you would be on a galley pulling for ramming speed, Red necks in the
South would still be hanging blacks and Hitler would have fried all the Jews.
               Dancing Bear

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 22        Sun Jan 22, 1989
M.RICHARDSO4 [dancing bear]  at 01:48 EST

The bible has been around for years. Millions have read it. All read it a
different way and see what they want in it, I guess myself included. I still
seem to remember something in Revelations that, I think it was 130,000, of the
tribes of Isreal(SP?) will be save. The worlds got about 4 or 5 billion on it,
maybe a quarter of them "Christians" (a good amount in name only). Hell's
going to get mighty crowded isn't it? (but I'm sure god will make room in
heaven for the preists who used to torture confessions out of the peasants
during the "Dark Ages", won't he, after all they believed?).
 I will lay off now. I got to get ready for the real world (sung to a song
from the Wizard of OZ---Rapists and muggers and thieves, OH MY!).
                     Daning Bear

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 23        Sun Jan 22, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 14:01 EST

Bear, you are a great source of fresh air in this place. Thanks!
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 24        Mon Feb 06, 1989
D.WILLIS7                    at 22:55 MST

There does not have to be a conflict between evolution and creation. Suppose
an almighty creator wanted to create a perfect universe. He could plan it out
in His mind before doing anything else. When He created the universe He could
create it with the "track record" of His design process. Thus, the fossil
record would show the evolution of God's thought. He could easily create it in
7 literal days if He so chose. Thus, evolutionists are studying not what
happened in the physical universe but the history of the mind of God. Doesn't
this reconcile both views; except for those that want to reject an all-
powerful God?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 25        Tue Feb 07, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 12:53 EST

DWILLIS it's hard to refute what you say, though I don't believe it, since
obviously an omnipotent being could do what you say. But why choose such a
cluttered way of doing things, when instead you could say God, all-knowing and
all powerful, knew just what to put into the "Big Bang" to create the
universe, eventually the earth, and eventually evolve life on earth to man.
The second way is just as possible for God, and avoids the nagging question I
have about your account: Why would he want to do something like that? If he
didn't need or want natural processes to enable his creation, why bother with
the false track record, as you call it?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 26        Thu Feb 09, 1989
PANICHOLLS                   at 21:49 PST

For some reason, this discussion seems to begin with someone's idea of god or
purpose and does not get to the real meat of this issue.  Modern  biology
revolves around evolutionary theory.  No other idea has as much power in terms
of the quantity of observations explained.  To any a biologist,  there is no
question of the fact that life on this planet is the result of a rich history
of change and adaptation and that the most important  mechanism explaining
this change is that first outlined by Charles Darwin in 1859, and expanded
upon by numerous researchers since.  Only a backward little group of nebishes
in San Diego doubt this (as scientists go, at any rate).

Most religions have reconciled themselves with this aspect of science.  It is
perhaps silly to believe in a god that would purposely plant such over-
whelming evidense for evolution in order to deceive us.  It is only a very
backward minority of religionists who insist that the bible is not only a
religious text, but a biology text as well.

With evolution, there is a choice.  If you want to believe in god, that is ok.
Ultimate ontology is more or less up for grabs and is not a subject open to
scientific investigation.    It is possible to accept evolution  without any
strong religious direction, and that is perhaps what bothers some people.

The major issue, however, centers around education and what should be taught
in high school and perhaps college biology classes.  To me, there is one
answer.  You teach science in a science classroom.  You do not teach religion.
Contrary to what the Institute for Creation Research would have you believe,
Creationism is not science.  It is not even good religion, according to the
world council of churches.  The issue of fair play, of presenting "both sides"
is a false one.  Presenting alternative scientific explainations is one thing,
persenting religion pretending to be science is another.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 27        Sat Feb 11, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 13:49 EST

Thanks PANICHOLLS for a cogent summary. It is interesting that the mainstream
representatives of Catholoicism, Judaism and most Protestants accept
evolution. Only the (relatively) new fundamentalist sects reject it. The
Vatican officially accepts the Big Bang theory as explanation of the mode of
creation of the universe. Long ago someone wrote that while Judaism has the
Talmud and the Rabbinic tradition to complement the Bible, and The Catholic
Church as Canon law and the Papacy to complement the Bible, Protestantism by
and large has ONLY the Bible,and that has caused the "creation" of dozens of
little sects each trying to out-verbatim each other on matters of Biblical
text. Evolution does NOT exclude religion. But, as PANICHOLLS said, it does
not REQUIRE it, either, and that is what seems to irritate so many of the self-
chosen ones. I agree with those who feel that religion as a concept has been
too much stripped from the schools- but put it back where it belongs: in
philosophy and social science, not in science.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 28        Sat Feb 11, 1989
J.KIM5                       at 15:06 CST

     I take exception to the contention of PANICHOLLS that "only a  backward
little group of nebishes in San Diego doubt this  [evolution]." Such a
statement is no argument--it is merely an  insult, and it points up the very
problem that I feel is at the  heart of the debate: The problem is not that
creationists are  unscientific, as opposed to evolutionists.  Rather, both
major  theories of cosmogony are scientifically unproven.  Even the  leading
proponents of evolution, when they are being honest, admit  that no theory of
macroevolution has been proven in any scientific  way. For instance, L.
Harrison Matthews, in his introduction to  the 1971 edition of Darwin's
"Origin of Species" writes, "The fact  of evolution is the backbone of
biology, and biology is thus in  the peculiar position of being a science
founded on an unproved  theory--is it then a science or faith? Belief in the
theory of  evolution is thus exactly parallel to the belief in special
creation--both are concepts which believers know to be true but  niether, up
to the present, has been capable of proof (pp. x-xi,  London: J. M. Dent and
Sons).

     The important issue is not how many people believe it, or how  much of
science accepts it, but rather how it fits the evidence.  If the theory does
not agree with the particulars of the evidence,  then it is not scientific,
PERIOD. I have yet to find any  scientist who is willing to say that the
fossil record gives any  evidence of the changes required by the theory of
macroevolution  (I accept microevolution as proven). The only one who comes
close  is S. Gould, who has basically stated that the evidence CANNOT  support
a gradualistic theory of macroevolution. The problem with  his view is that
his speculation of large-scale, simultaneous  changes is not supported by any
known biological mechanism.

     Historically, the facts are not as DRMIKE suggests. The  theory of
evolution is at least as old as the pre-Socratic Greek  philosophers, and has
had adherents throughout history. Though  these theories were not as developed
as Darwin's, they shared the  basic presupposition of a materialistc,
naturalistic explanation  of the development of life. Both Judaism and
Christianity have  denied this from the start; the newcomers are not the
Fundamentalists, but rather the "mainline Christian" adherents of  evolution.
I insist that those who comment on this at least be  honest with the historic
facts: no matter how we choose to  understand the biblical record today, it is
undeniable that  historic Judaism and historic Christianity have always
understood  the Bible to teach special creation!

     To sum up my position, I would say three things:

(1) The theory of macroevolution is in no way a proven scientific  theory. It
is, in fact, faith.

(2) The evidence, fossil and otherwise, gives no indication that a
naturalistic mechanism could account for the origin of life, nor  for the
division of the first life into the diverse families  present today.

(3) In the absence of such evidence supporting the theory of  macroevolution,
one is AT LEAST as worthy of respect if he holds a  different theory,
especially if he feels that it supports the  evidence better. In fact, even if
that theory has its source in  the Bible, it is still worthy of scientific
investigation as long  as it deals with the substance of the scientific
method: FACTS.

For more information, the following books are rational and honest  treatments
of the question from a non-evolutionary perspective:

Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (Bethesda, MD:  Adler and
Adler). This book is written by a Australian doctor who  does not argue from
any religious viewpoint.

Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma" (El Cajon, CA: Master Book  Publishers).
This is a book written by a Christian who  investigated the issue for the New
York State Board of Regents. It  presents the results of interviews with
evolutionary scientists  who are frank about the limitations of the theory.

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 29        Sun Feb 12, 1989
E.HAAS                       at 00:36 EST

     No scientific theory has ever been "proven."  It is just a matter of how
much supporting evidence there is for a particular theory.  Evolution has far
more supporting evidence than most well-accepted theories.  The vast majority
of biologists believe that evolution has occured, although they may not agree
over the specific details (e.g., slow and gradual evolution as opposed to
punctuated equilibrium).  It is only the fundamentalist religious groups that
seriously question the theory of evolution.

     The typical fundamentalist tactic is to attack evolution (usually by
quoting scientists out of context, or by misapplying poorly understood
scientific knowledge) and then advance creationism as the only alternative.
There are few, if any, books that actually give support to creationism.  Not
only is creationism not a scientific theory, it is unsupportable.  Even in the
unlikely event that the fundamentalists were able to show that evolution had
not occured, they would still have to show that creationism was the only
viable alternative.

     The author of the previous message said something about the fossil record
not supporting macroevolution.  It does, and it does quite well, especially
considering the way that fossils are formed and later found.  If you were to
show a creationist fossils of two creatures (call them fossil #1 and fossil
#2), one of which had apparently evolved from the other, the creationist would
object, and claim that since you had no fossil #1.5 (an intermediary), the two
fossils were in no way evidence of evolution.  Then, suppose you find fossil
#1.5.  The creationist will raise the same objection over the lack of fossil
#1.25 and fossil #1.75.  And so on, ad nauseum.  And, if you ever do manage to
get a complete spectrum, the creationist will then claim that this represents
evolution within a single species.

     I have a question for the creationists:  If the evidence in support of
evolution is really as weak as you claim, why then do so many bioligists
support it?  Scientists seek the truth; they have nothing to gain by
supporting a false theory (at least, not as a group).  Unless, that is,
 believe that all of these scientists are part of a Satanic plot.  Beleif in
evolution is NOT an act of faith, it is simply a matter of siding with the
vast majority of the evidence.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 30        Wed Feb 15, 1989
ASGARD [DBALTZ]              at 22:26 MST

Once again, J.KIM5 raises the distinction that most Humanists try to blur --
that between evolution within a species (microevolution), which I agree
scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports, and evolution of new species
(macroevolution) which has a bit of support in the scientific community but
many holes as well.  As I see it, 'punctuated evolution' is merely a way of
throwing randomness into the picture so anything that happens can be
explained.  I love to see randomness introduced into any science because it
opens up the experiment to 'acts of God'.  What one person calls a 'random'
event, I call it an 'act of God' and neither can be proved wrong.  We could,
of course, compromise and call it 'punctuated Creation'!

In betwixt his bigoted attack on fundamentalists, E.HAAS raises an interesting
reductio argument in explaining the 'tactic' used by creationists.  Such an
argument is indeed possible, but as J.KIM5 pointed out, it is not needed.
The incremental differences (1.5 to 1.75) relate to the microevolution, not
the macroevolution (more like 5.0 to 3.0).  I don't feel that requiring
biologists to show evidence of an intermediate step between Neandrathal Man
and Cro-Magnon Man is splitting the hairs he is talking about.

As a final note:  I am glad to hear E.HAAS believes in 'proof by numbers'.  If
the number of biologists who believe in evolution are proof, then the number
of people who believe in Christianity is proof of God's existance.

       dB
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 31        Wed Feb 15, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 22:47 PST

   I think there is a fundemental misunderstanding here about what
macroevolution is.  Punctuated equilibrium is not macroevolution, it is a
theory that accounts for the apparent acceleration in speciation events that
are occasionally documented in the fossil record.  Punctuated equilibrium is a
special kind of natural selection, one that occurs more rapidly than
microevolutionary processes.   That evolution is gradualistic de  is a matter
of perspective.  If you are looking at the 4.5 billion year history of the
earth, then it is gradualistic.  If you are looking at  specific events within
a short period of time (5-10 million years), then some events appear to speed-
up and slow down.

  Macroevolution concerns the evolution of larger taxa.  While it is true that
classification is an arbitrary activity, some larger groups of  organisms,
such as mammals, or reptiles, or the different phyla, represent unique
historical events.  In some ways, they may be viewed as genetic bottlenecks in
the earths history.   I have an excellent book to recommend to anyone
interested in a serious discussion of both the strengths and weaknesses of
evolutionary theory.  It is called  _Evolution and Entrophy: Toward a Unified
Theory of Biology_, by Daniel Brooks and E.O.Wiley.

  Someone also made a reference to neanderthal and cro-magnon and the
intermediates between them.  If you want to look at some fossils that show
some neaderthal and some modern human morphology, try the Skul and Tabun Cave
materials from Mt. Carmel in Isreal.  Also look at the  materials from a site
called Krapina in Iraq(?) (not certain of the  location, actually.).  However,
the role of neaderthals in evolution has changed somewhat since this person
went to school.  No longer beetle-browed brutes, neaderthals are classified as
a now extinct race of Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens neandertalesis).  Again, as
more fossils are unearthed, the picture begins to appear less cloudy.
Remember that as recently as 20 years ago, the number of hominid fossils known
could fit on a dinning room table.

  This brings us back to the discussion of god and religion.   J.KIM5  seems
to reject the notion that "true" christians would teach anything opposed to
Genesis.  I find the use of that sort of reference to be chilling and ask him
to consider that it is only a small group of fundementalists that want to use
the bible as a biology text.  Numbers may seem unimportant, but if 100 people
are telling you are wrong, the odds are pretty much in their favor.

By the way, so everyone knows where I come from, I teach high school b
biology and freshman college anthropology in San Francisco.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 32        Wed Feb 22, 1989
E.HAAS                       at 01:23 EST

     I do not believe in "proof by numbers."  When a large proportion of
experts believe in a theory, I hold that to be good evidence for that theory
but, certainly not proof.

     If you can accept evolution within a species, why can you not accept the
following:  Two populations of one species become cut off from one another
(perhaps by rising water levels that trap some of them on an island that used
to be a mountain).  The two populations are separated for tens of thousands of
years, and are subjected to different enviromental conditions.  By the time
the waters receed, the two populations are so different they can no longer
interbreed.  They would be, by definition, different species.

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 33        Fri Feb 24, 1989
J.R.WILL                     at 20:35 PST

  The PBS show NOVA just had a very good show about this very topic. It may
still be playing in your area(s) so keep your eye on the TV listings.
  The point needs to be made that EVOLUTION is NOT considered a theory.
Evolution is the proven fact that species have changed slowly over a long
period of time and have changed from one species to another and so forth.
NATURAL SELECTION is a THEORY of how evolution took place.  Creationism
attacks Natural Selection and not evolution. (At least "scientific"
creationism does.)   The theory of natural selection is supported by the vast
majority of those who study such things, but is under continual revision.
Evolution itself is not at issue, just what caused it.
                       J.R.Will
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 34        Sat Feb 25, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 12:13 PST

No, creationists attack evolution itself, the idea that organisms change is
contrary to their interpretation of scripture, which calls for all forms of
life to have been created at the same time.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 35        Tue Feb 28, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 13:17 EST

Thanks for the input JR. When Creationists seek to dispute evolution by saying
something like "even scientists call it Darwin's THEORY of evolution" and
imply that scientists are unsure of it, it is important to remember that while
it is a theory, it is a theory explaining an observed FACT- evolution.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 36        Tue Mar 14, 1989
J.R.WILL                     at 22:39 PST

  Phil, remember that there are different groups who call themselves
Creationists.  The viewpoint that attacks only the the theory of natuaral
selection is held by those that (I believe) are trying to reach a "compromise"
position.  One that allows for GODs intervention in the process of evolution
and thus allows the creation stories to be interpreted rather than rejected.
  Does anyone know if the proponents of Creationism would feel cheated if
Hindu or Shinto creation stories were given equal time in schools?
                    J.R.Will
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 37        Mon Mar 20, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 20:10 EST

         "Does anyone know if the proponents of Creationism would feel
         cheated if Hindu or Shinto creation stories were given equal
         time in schools?" (J.R.Will msg.36)

Yes, they would. But, the question implies that Creationists want schools to
teach the Bible account of creation. Creationists do not want that.

"Scientific Creationism" is the title of a school text book put out by the
Institute for Creation Research. There are two editions of the book; there is
the "public school edition" and the "general edition". I have the general
edition. It has this to say about whether the Bible is to be taught in public
schools:

         "The [public school edition] deals with all the important
         aspects of the creation-evolution question from a strictly
         scientific point of view, attempting to evaluate the physical
         evidence from the relevant scientific fields without reference
         to the Bible or other religious literature." (pg iv Scientific
         Creationism by Henry Morris, Ph.D., Director, Institute for
         Creation Research, San Diego, Calif.)

So, the Creationist wants NO religious literature to have equal time. The
Creationist wants equal time for the evidences which contradict evolution.

Regards,
         Arminius2



 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 38        Tue Mar 21, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 12:33 EST

Of which, Arminius, there are none. There are conflicting "evidences" as to
how evolution proceded and procedes, but no scientific evidence contradicting
it. Only religious myth contradicts it.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 39        Tue Mar 21, 1989
NPC.ARCHIVES [Paul Chernof]  at 19:26 EST

Having viewed strategies by "Creationists", the main concern is to get
evolution out of the schools rather than Creationism in the schools.

A review of the legal arguments before the Arkansas court over its law (which
was thrown out) shows that Creationist turn back to religion (BTW, the
fierciest opponents fo the Arkansas law were very religious).

Paul
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 41        Thu Mar 23, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 22:39 EST

 DrMike,

 It is a complex world we live in, and the sea of information is boundless;
 almost every hypothesis which exists is troubled with contradictory
evidences.

 Do you wish us to believe Evolution is the exception?

 Of course there are contradictory evidences! It would be unlikely that there
 weren't, and such evidence ought to have fair representation in school text
 books.
 -------------
 Paul,

 During a pretrial conference Judge Overton said he did not understand how
 creation science could be taught without reference to a creator.

 The logic of the court was one dimensional from the start. They figured
 Creationism must be religious because it refers to a creator. Instead, they
 should have based their decision on whether or not scientific evidence
 sufficiently supported Creationism.

 Nevertheless, the Arkansas law did contain an obvious and unacceptable
 allusion to fundamentalist theology since it required teachers to tell
 students the world was created "out of nothing".  Of course this confirms
what
 you said about the Arkansas law. But, Creationists do want to rely on the
 scientific evidence in a class room environment, and without reference to the
 Bible. The wording of the Arkansas law went too far.

 Furthermore, even if Creationism had been a scientific fact, the court would
 feel it had no choice but to reject it, because it was religious. So you see,
 for Creationism, there is no escaping the religious label, and the court has
 no capacity to see a distinction whatever the scientific evidence.

 The Creationist says let the evidence speak; the court says no, not if it
 speaks of God, for that constitutes religious entanglement with the state.

 Regards,
         Arminius2
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 42        Fri Mar 24, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 12:09 EST

Creationism HAS no scientific evidence, backing or whatever. It is only that
people like ARMINIUS keep SAYING that it does. You can call a pig a horse, but
that doesn't MAKE it a horse. Saying Creationism has  scientific credibility
does not MAKE it so, nor change the fact that creationism flies in the face of
all scientific method.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 44        Fri Mar 24, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 18:56 EST

DrMike,

Likewise, your saying the evidence does not exist wont change the fact that it
does!

Regards,
          Arminius2
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 45        Fri Mar 24, 1989
L.PECKHAM                    at 22:03 EST

If creationism ISN'T religious, then WHY does the Institute of Creation
Research (? title, San Francisco) demand that all its members sign a form
professing their Christian faith and their belief in the Bible?
                             -- Windsinger
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 46        Fri Mar 24, 1989
HJOHN                        at 23:07 EST

If we wish to honestly search for answers to basic questions about life and
our universe such as how did the world originate and what is the meaning of
existence, then we must be open to "truth" from any source, whether that
source be tinged with an evolutionary bias or one guided by concepts of
creationism.

We need to re-examine some of our theories and allow their validity to be
tested.

There need not be conflict between Religion and Science even though that is
what some of us would like to believe.

The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead observes: "When we consider what
religion is for mankind, and what science is, it is no exaggeration to say
that the future course of history depends upon the decision of this generation
as to the relations between them."
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 47        Sat Mar 25, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 00:47 EST

L.Peckham,

Creationism IS religion. But, Scientific Creationism is scientific theory
which agrees with religion, and which was inspired by religion, but which is
not itself religion.

Creationism can be approached from a factual basis or from a religious basis.
It can be approached from the factual basis without reference to the religious
and it can be dealt with religiously with out reference to the scientific.

If those who believe in Scientific Creationism happen to also believe in
religious creationism it does not negate the factual evidence. Facts are
facts, and so what if they agree with religion?

Facts are neutral as far as religion is concerned, and Scientific Creationism
stands or falls upon the neutral facts.

It is at THAT point where Scientific Creationism and religious creationism
separate from each other.

Creation Science refers to the scientific evidences for creation and
inferences from those scientific evidences. Evolution Science refers to the
scientific evidences for evolution and inferences from those scientific
evidences.

Finally, I wish to point out that the Louisiana creation law went to the US
Circuit Court of Appeals prior to going to the U.S. Supreme court. There,
fifteen judges decided on the case, 8 were against the law and 7 were for it.
It was a one vote defeat.

But, the real point relevant to your letter is the seven judges made an
unusually strong dissent, saying they found the law to be constitutional and
that creation science is both scientific and non religious.

So, it is not just me or people like me who acknowledge the scientific
element. (In spite of what DrMike has said to the contrary!)


Arminius2
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 48        Sat Mar 25, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 12:43 EST

Judges can be as foolish as the rest. Mainstream relgions accept both
cosmology and evolution (the Catholic Church- you've heard of it, ARminius?-
accepts the Big Bang theory of creation). I for one am fed up with people who
call themselves Christians as opposed to those who for generations have been
Episcopalians, Catholics, Presbyterians, etc--- these "Christians" consider
themselves better, purer, born again, etc. And they seem to disparage other
Christian sects (what I grew up thinking were the "real religions", the sects
named above). I have a surgeon friend who is also a Catholic Priest who is fed
up with the "Christians" acting as though he is not one. He, for one, finds
them woefully ignorant about everything from science to theology.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 49        Sat Mar 25, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 20:20 EST

DrMike,

I have refuted your allegation about me. I have demonstrated that Scientific
Creationism extends well beyond people "like me". Now, the honorable response
would have been for you to concede the point. But, instead you resort to
making allegations against the judges too!

Case closed.

Arminius2
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 50        Sat Mar 25, 1989
CHES                         at 19:44 CST

Arminius2, are you trying to say that the judicial system in this country is
supposed to determine what is science and what is not? I always thought that
was the responsibility of scientists, not lawyers. In fact, the final outcomes
in the recent legal battles over "scientific creationism" support this
contention - it is the job of scientists, not the federal government, to
determine what defines science.

With that in mind I would like to remind those on this board of the message I
uploaded somewhere in the catagory a few months ago which quoted directly the
position of the United States National Academy of Sciences on the issue of
"scientific ccreationism". I'll requote some of it here:

"It is, therefore, our unequivocal conclusion that creationism, with its
accounts of the origin of life by supernatural means, is not science. It
subordiantes evidence to statements based on authority and revelation. Its
documentation is almost entirely limited to the special publications of its
advocates. And its central hypothesis is not subject to change in light of new
data or demonstration of error. Moreover, when the evidence for creationism
has been subjected to the tests of the scientific method, it has been found
invalid."

"No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than
scientific observation should be admissible as science in any science course.
Incorporationg the teaching of such docitrnes into a science curriculum
stifles the development of critical thinking patterns in the developing mind
and seriously compromises the best interests of public education. This could
eventually hamper the advancement of science and technology as students take
their places as leaders of future genterations."

BTW - what Dr. Mike has been saying on this board is correct. You have not
refuted him Arminius2.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 51        Sun Mar 26, 1989
A2.DEAN                      at 13:10 EST

A few inaccuracies to point out here - ARMENIUS, your statements about the
judge's ruling in Arkansas are inaccurate.  The judge ruled, my  friend, upon
his finding that the Creation Scientists had as their unnamed source the
Christian Bible's account of Genesis, and only one interpretation of that book
at that.  And, in fact, this group  seeks to prove such ridiculous things as
the age of the earth being less than 20,000 years (about 10,000, plus or minus
5,000 or so, with absolute limits of 20,000 and about 5,000 years) and bases
almost all of its arguments in refutations (mostly inaccurate ones) of
Evolutionary theory.  The most common practice amongst them (and other radical
christian fundamentalist groups) is to weave fact and opinion together as one,
and to ignore whatever is inconvenient.

There is nothing wrong from a scientific perspective in believing a Creator or
"creative force" or whatever anyone wants to call it. Creation "science" seeks
to prove at the outset the existence of a Creator, and one particular creator
at that, and while their general text for the public schools does not directly
reference the Bible, it does speak of events in geological and biological
history solely from the perspective of one religious group.  It is interesting
that the Arkansas case was brought forth by Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant
groups in Arkansas, for they saw that this particular group (the creationists)
were seeking to put in the public school one  radical group's opinion on the
nature of the world.

The BEST book for anyone to read on this subject is called "Is God a
Creationist?"  It's a series of essays by Jewish, Catholic, and  Protestant
priests, rabbis, and ministers, as well as by a non-  clerical Christian who
IS one who believes in the Genesis account but who shows his opposition to
this group for scientific reasons.   "Scientists Confront Creationism" is a
scientific work which shows very clearly the deceptions, distortions, and the
interweaving of fact with opinion that the Institute for Creation Research and
the books they write use.

There is no credible evidence for the ideas which this particular  group
calling itself Creation Scientists put forth.  Zero, zip, none. And while
evolutionary theory has its flaws, it is overall a very successful theory with
huge amounts of data behind it, and yet is not a theory which was created to
match any theology or point of view. There is much debate in scientific
circles about the exact mechanisms of evolution, and it may well not even be
an accurate theory.  But it is not one which is based on theological grounds
and should scientific evidence come forth to disprove it (none has yet) the
scientific world will weigh this evidence and accept it, which the ICR and
similar  groups never will (they haven't already).
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 52        Sun Mar 26, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 13:17 EST

Thanks for the support, CHES. ARMINIUS states he has refuted me by stating
that he has done so, not by doing so, which is the same method he uses to
produce "scientific" evidence. It reminds me of the bumper sticker so popular
here in the rural South: "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it."
Lots of room for intelligent thought there, right?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 54        Sun Mar 26, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 18:10 EST

My point in referring to the Judges was to show the lack of objectivity on the
part of DrMike regarding what kind of people recognize Creationism as a
science. Creationists are not all alike, and they certainly are not all like
me.

The adherents of Scientific Creationism come from all walks of life. You can
add to the list Scientists, Politicians, Professors, Biologists, Doctors etc.
There are thousands of creationist scientists today, with science degrees from
accredited schools. And, it is safe to assume they are able to seriously
challenge the statement you quoted above. Alone, the Creation Research Society
has over 1000 scientists with post-graduate science degrees who are or have
been members.

I guess DrMike has no choice now but to believe that all those judges,
scientists, doctors, politicians, are just ignorant like me. I can hear him
now,

         "Scientific Creationism? Bah Humbug! You judges, you scientists,
         you politicians, you doctors! You are all ignorant like Arminius!
         Away with the lot of you! Long live Evolution!

And, I base this on the comment he made about the foolishness of the judges.

Of course none of this proves Creationism or refutes Macro Evolution. But, it
does refute the allegation DrMike made. Furthermore, by his taking such an
absurdly prejudicial attitude, he has probably done more towards hurting the
Evolutionist's cause as its spokesman than I ever could have!

My purpose in joining the discussion was to challenge the underlying
"prejudices" commonly held by evolutionists, prejudices such as those typified
in DrMike's comments. You don't need to be a scientist to know those are
wrong, regardless what the evidence may be for or against Creationism.

Although I respect your opinion, I must disagree with your statement that I
have not refuted his allegation. But, to me, that is not the real point. The
judges in the Louisiana case were not foolish, nor are the thousand
creationist scientists I mentioned. The real point is the lack of objectivity
which branded the judges foolish for agreeing with creationists.


Arminius2
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 55        Mon Mar 27, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 12:53 EST

If you think the courts of law, judges and juries alike, decide anything based
on TRUTH, you are naive. The decisions are made quite narrowly on something
called LAW, which was invented by the lawyers and politicians, and while it
may be useful in deciding if Joe Jones really shot Bill Smith, it is utterly
useless in deciding scientific truths. You'd have better luck betting all your
stake TWICE on number 22 and hoping for enough to get your exit visa and
ticket on the Lisbon plane.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 57        Mon Mar 27, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 20:09 EST

A2.Dean,

For the sake of those following the discussion I wish to clarify that my most
recent letters (47-54) have dealt with the judges in the LOUISIANNA case,
whereas you are referring to the one judge in the ARKANSAS case, to a comment
I made in #41.

You portray yourself as correcting an inaccuracy on my part, but I am not
quite sure what is you are correcting. It appears you are merely elaborating
details. I already conceded the point to NPC Archives that the Arkansas law
went too far, and that it contained an unacceptable allusion to fundamentalist
theology. I concede that point to you as well.

But, Creationists DO wish to rely on the evidence. The Arkansas law was an
early attempt by creationists to obtain equal time. The Arkansas Creationists
felt everything they wrote in that law was supportable by scientific evidence.
I think it is reasonably fair to at least give them that much credit.

Take the references to the young earth for example. Many Creationists believe
there is evidence for it. THAT is why they felt it should have been part of
the equal time requirement.

Now, whether or not the evidence itself could withstand close scientific
examination is what should really be our concern. Since you have a couple of
books which respond to Creationist arguments, I propose we post the arguments
here pro and con, and see what is left when the dust clears.

If we both detach ourselves emotionally from the subject maybe we can make
some meaningful progress. So far though I have not been able to get past the
anti-creationist prejudices to get to that.

If you are willing to proceed then we will have to agree on some kind of limit
to the number of rebuttals. Furthermore, it ought to be understood that I
might require time to find a response to arguments I am unfamiliar with. In
some cases I expect I will have to write the Institute of Creation Research.

Certainly it is a much better approach than what has been tried so far.

Arminius2
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 58        Mon Mar 27, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 20:29 EST

Again, DrMike, you miss my point. My argument is not that judges determine
science. My argument is that you have branded them as fools when you should
have given them credit for having made such a statement for some good reason.

Arminius2
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 59        Tue Mar 28, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 12:13 EST

Why should I give judges the benefit of the doubt- for using reason. If  they
don't use reason they deserve true "contempt of court." Judges are human,
subject to the same prejudices as everyone else. The law is not competent to
rule on science, and judges should not try.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 60        Tue Mar 28, 1989
NPC.ARCHIVES [Paul Chernof]  at 20:04 EST

I suggest the reading of the transcript of the Arkansas trial (I've read it)
and the judge's decision. The "Scientific Creationists" forces had only one
witness, one of the co-discovers of DNA. When brought to the stand he said
that of course evolution is the truth. The creationists did not even know the
position of their own witness!

Creationist literature often confuses the issue by inventing its own  words
and pretending that they are part of scientific vocabulary. They often use the
word "kind." What is a "kind?" You won't find it in any biology book. It is
never defined by the creationist literature.

The C literature also has a nasty habit of quoting the formost evolutionary
scientists out of context in order to promote their own cause. Stephen Jay
Gould has found his own words in creationist texts used in a way which shows
that the texts' authors are grasping at straws.

The plantiffs of the the Arkansas trial (who were attempting to rid Arkansas
of the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act")
included the resident Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopal,
Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches, the principal
official of the Presbyterian Churches in Arkansas, other United Methodist,
Southern Baptist and Presbyterian clergy, as well as several persons who sue
as parents and next friend of minor children attending Arkansa public schools"
-- from the decision of the court

"Among the organization plaintiffs are the American Jewish Congress, the Union
of American Hebrew Congregations, the American Jewish Committee, the Arkansas
Education Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers and the
National Coalition for Public Education and Religious Liberty." same source.

The defendents were the Arkansas Board of Education and its members, the
director of the Dept of Ed. and the State Textbooks and Instructional
Materials Selecting Committee.

One main issue was the Establishment Clause. Its 2 central values are
voluntarism and plaralism. In Abbington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S.
203, 22 (1963), Justice Clark stated that "to withstand the strictures of the
Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary
effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion." Thus, required Bible
reading in school is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Judge Overton (who judged the Arkansas case) quoted creationists linking
"evolution as a source of society's ills" with the claim that evolution is
anti-Biblical and anti-Christian.

The act was introduced to the Arkansas Senate by Senator James L. Holsted, a
self-described "born again" Christian Fundamentalist. "He did not consult the
State Department of Education, scientists, scient educators or the Arkansas
Attorney General. The Act was not referred to any Senate committee for hearing
and was passed after only a few minutes' discussion on the Senate floor."

Judge Overton found that the preparation of the Act and the campaign for its
adoption "were motivated by his [Holsted's] opposition to the theory of
evolution and his desire to see the Biblical version of creation taught in the
public schools." The Acts supporters publicly proclaimed the religious aspects
of the Act.

Judge Overton also points out that the approach to teaching both "creation
science" and "evolution science" found in the Act is identical to the two-
model approach espoused by the Institute for  Creation research. "The two
model approach of the creationsits is simply a contrived dualism which has no
scientific factual basis or legitimate  ional purpose. It assumes only two
explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and animals:
It was either the work of a creator or it was not...[the model] dictates that
all scientific evidence which fails to suppor the theory of evolution is
necessary scientifi evidence in support of creationism and is, therefore,
creation science "evidence" in support of Section 4(a)"

Another important point is creationists emphasis on origins. The scientific
community does not consider the origins of life to be a part of evolutionary
theory. Evolution deals with HOW life evolved, and NOT how life came to be.

In summary, the judge found the Act to have not been thought out and its
purpose being that of religious indoctrination. More importantly, he points
out that creationists have set up a false context, do not show support for
creationism beyond attacking evolution, and try to set up a straw man by
claiming that evolution attempts to explain things which evolution does not
(in reality) try to explain (i.e. the origins of life).

Looking above I appologize for the long length of this message.

Paul
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 61        Tue Mar 28, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 23:11 EST

Paul,

I was surprised to read the theory of Evolution makes no claim as to how life
came to be, and that it only claims how life evolved.

Of course I am willing to admit common stereotype may have misled me over the
years. But, unless you have some new information, I don't think I can accept
your distinction in light of the primordial soup scenario.

Doesn't that explain how life came to be, as opposed to how it evolved? And,
isn't that an integral part of the theory of Evolution as is taught in public
school?

I see how evolution (as a process) could not begin until AFTER life came out
of the soup. And, I can see how it might be said that the origin of life was
not part of an evolutionary process, but rather the result of accident.

Yet, since the soup scenario is part of the THEORY of Evolution, it seems the
"Theory" does deal with the origin of life as well as how it evolves.

Arminius2




 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 62        Wed Mar 29, 1989
M.RICHARDSO4 [dancing bear]  at 00:30 EST

Mike; Arminius may be on to something here. On the more or less Christian side
of the house we can take the creation myths back to the Semitic-Babylonia-
Sumerian-Akkadian mythic traditions. The Semitic mythology engendered Judaism,
Mohammedanism, and Christianity. The reading I'm doing on the Akkadians is
something else. Much of it's pieced together from myths from other "societies"
that came later.

After we learn about those creation myths we can go onto the Crow, Navajo,
Eskimo, Zuni, Hopi, the Race of Partholon (Ireland), Buddist, Hindu, Shinto,
Taoism, etc., etc, etc.

After comparing them all we could find out that all the creation myths from
around the world are, more or less, the same.

No, I guess that would not work. That would just be a comparative religion
class and would not be teaching creation as fact. But if we have to teach one
version lets make it the Crow version.

Arminius, this is my long winded way of asking who's creation myth are you
going to teach as scientific fact?

                    Dancing Bear


 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 63        Tue Mar 28, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 23:59 PST

Creationism is not discussed in any peer reviewed scientific journals, it does
not adher to any reasonable definition of what science is (.ie, it cannot be
falsified, it cannot be used to make predictions and it appeals  to a
supernatural agent).  The so called evidense proposed by creationists has been
refuted time and time again, yet how many times do we see the thermodynamic
arguements, the manprints, the "gaps in the fossil records." Creationism has
no evidense to offer.  I has no explanatory power.  It does not link the
science of biology together.

If you have evidense for creationism, please present it.  In other words,  I
am offering you the noose, stick you head in it and I will draw it around you
and do away with this fiction of "scientific creationism."  If you have some
new evidense that I have not seen, then lets here it.  Otherwise, le    let us
call a spade a spade.  Creationism is not only bad science, it is a    also
bad religion.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 64        Wed Mar 29, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 12:25 EST

Amen <no pun intended>
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 65        Thu Mar 30, 1989
NPC.ARCHIVES [Paul Chernof]  at 19:34 EST

Armenius, if you go back and read Darwin you will realize how poorly titled
are his books. The titles do harken to "creation", but are really about what
happens after life exists (of course by saying that "life exists" we mean that
1-cell life exists).

The "primordal soup" is within the real of biology (rather, creation of life
is within biology, as the judge stated) but not evolution itself. The trial
transcripts which I have read were not the first mention of this, Stephen Jay
Gould often emphasizes that evolution is not about the original creation of
life. Though evolution must be involved with this since there are arguements
about when "life" began (when do you have a bunch of amino acids and when do
you have life?).

One of the worst hurdles evolution has is the mis-information about it spread
in secondary schools. Since schools and textbooks go to great lengths to avoid
discussing evolution, many people are lucky to have spend as much as a week
studying it. And textbook writers usually steal from each other and do little
original research (ever wonder why the same tired story about horse ancestors
having been the size of fox  terriers, especially when very few people today
KNOW how big a fox terrier actually is. Almost every textbook refers to fox
terriers although there is hardly any mention of this fact in scientific
literature).

Paul
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 66        Fri Mar 31, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 01:04 EST

Paul,

Thank you for the reply. It seems you are agreeing with my last letter, but
with a slight difference in emphasis. It seems you wish to emphasize that the
origin of life was a biological process, and not an evolutionary process.

I see no problem with your saying that, but the emphasis is misleading in that
it will make some people think no origin of life is posited by the theory of
evolution.

I think the proper emphasis is to say the theory of Evolution does deal with
the origin of life. And THEN make your distinction. As you pointed out
evolution must be "involved" with the primordial soup scenario.

Regarding the primordial soup scenario, one of the scientific arguments
presented by Creationists in the Louisiana case was that the isomers in
protein amino acids and nucleic acid sugars would not plausibly have arisen in
a primordial soup, and yet they are necessary to life.

Arminius2
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 67        Fri Mar 31, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 01:07 EST

Here, I address the comments made by Dancing Bear and P.Nichols. As a foreword
I wish to say there is nothing new here. And, I am not interested in testing
the noose, but I am interested in hearing P.Nichols answers to items 1-4.
                         ------------------

I would want teachers to counter-balance the "life by accident" scenario with
the evidence for intelligent design. But, I don't think it is necessary to go
much further than that. The evidence, and whatever logical inference might be
drawn from it is what should be presented. Such an approach would seem to
avoid the problem of which creation model to follow.

And, when it comes to the point where the teacher tells the students that man
evolved from a lower order etc., I would expect the teacher to restore the
balance by telling about the "ifs" involved as well.

The "ifs":

     1. No one has been able to observe the macro evolutionary process
     occuring today. Hence, it does not fall into the category of testable
     science as does the theory of electricity, or the theory of gravity.
     Rather, macro evolution is at best a forensic science, an interpretation
     of circumstantial evidence.

     2. Because the fossil record systematically lacks transitional forms the
     evolutionist can only presume they occurred. He sees fish at one level,
     and on the next he sees reptiles, and the next birds. He presumes upward
     evolution occurred, but without transitional forms to prove it, it
     remains a presumption. Furthermore, the concept is not capable of
     falsification because evolutionists can always presume the transitions
     occured even if none are ever found.

     3. The great array of highly organized invertebrates -clams, snails,
     worms, jellyfish, sponges, sea urchins, trilobites, brachiopods- appear
     abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed without a trace of
     forerunners except some questionable one celled microorganisms which
     are too far removed on the evolutionary scale. If such highly organized
     creatures could appear without forerunners, the same thing may have
     occured at the other levels as well.

     4. If macro evolution were true one would expect to see invertebrates
     evolving into fish today, and then fish into amphibians, to reptiles, to
     birds etc. Why should creatures evolve THEN, but not CONTINUE  doing so
     now?

     I am not JUST asking why we see no evidence of transitional forms living
     today. If I do that, someone will reply that the process is ocurring but
     that it takes time.

     But that response misses my point. I am asking why reptiles (etc.) did
     not CONTINUE evolving, so that today we would be looking at the emergence
     of transitional forms which have been long in the making! In other words,
     there has been plenty of time!  Yet, can anyone show me a reptile
     developing feathers or a convincing transitional form?

     One would expect such transitional forms to be alive today if evolution
     were true, but it is explained away by a secondary assumption which in
     turn requires a third, ad infinitum. Yet, in spite of the fact almost all
     of it is incapable of falsification, its followers call it science.


P.Nichols says Creationism is not predictive. I think it is. Creationism would
predict that no transitional forms will ever be found, and it would predict
that the same gaps we see today between the different kinds would be the same
type of gap throughout the fossil record. That prediction has proven correct.

Evolution on the other hand would PREDICT transitional forms in the fossil
record, yet they are systematically absent. It would predict that evolution
had been long in the making up to now, and that transitions would be occurring
even today. Yet, we see none.

On the basis of the above, I believe Creationism is just as much science as is
evolution, both fall into the realm of a forensic science, and I believe
Creationism is a better predictive model than Evolution.

Finally, P.Nichols says creationism is not capable of falsification. But,
theoretically it is. If the evolutionists ever found a living example of macro
evolution, or a transitional fossil which proved it occurred beyond reasonable
doubt, they would be able to falsify the anti-evolutionary portions of
Creationism.  But, evolution on the other hand is totally incapable of
falsification. It can always presume the transitional forms occurred even
though none are ever found.

Arminius2
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 68        Fri Mar 31, 1989
DRMIKE                       at 13:10 EST

ARMINIUS, you state that evolution is not a testable science, but a forensic
one. What is religion but a group of myths that you choose to believe to the
exclusion of others' myths? And if you want a reptile with feathers, look over
your head. They are there all the time, but are called birds. That is where
the surviving dinosaurs went.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 69        Fri Mar 31, 1989
HJOHN                        at 21:13 EST

The currently fashionable thinking  among some that supernatural activity in
the formation of our universe is unacceptable is a very restrictive and
binding position.

This kind of thinking rejects the scientific notion of free inquiry.

When a so-called scientist says that because he/she sees no proof of a Divine
Creator in the natural world and thus he cannot accept the concept of
creationism, that is being dogmatic.

To discover "truth" one must be open to any possibility - yes even that of
divine influence in the origin of the universe, no matter how repugnant such
an idea may seem to some.

The true scientist must approach his study of the universe from a position of
humility. He must acknowledge the limitations of science and its strengths. He
must shun dogma.  He must be open to the fact that truth can come from any
source.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 70        Fri Mar 31, 1989
ARNIEBELL                    at 18:18 PST

Isaac Asimov's newspaper column today contains some frightening statistics on
America's scientific illiteracy.

The Public Opinion Laboratory at Northern Illinois University did a telephone
survey of 2,041 adults, asking each one about 75 questions on basic science.
The conclusion:  nearly 95% were ignorant of basic scientific facts.

Fully 21% believed that the sun revolves around the earth.  Another 7% had no
idea which revolved around which.  Other popular beliefs were that atoms are
smaller than electrons, and that laser beams are made of sound waves.

Asimov brings a little religion into his remarks by quoting Joshua 10:12-13.
The Israelites were fighting the Gibeonites and winning, but it appeared that
the Gibeonites might escape under cover of darkness.  So, Joshua commanded,
"..'Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon'...So the  sun stood still in the midst
of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day".

Apparently, these verses were quoted by the fundamentalist Bible-thumpers of
the 1600's to fight the notion that the earth was moving around the sun.
 Asimov asks, "Now, how can Joshua have ordered the sun to stand still and how
could the sun have proceeded to stand still if it weren't moving to begin
with?"

Asimov wonders if science teachers in heavily fundamentalist areas
deliberately teach "sun revolving around the earth" science, either out of
stubborn belief, or out of fear of losing their jobs.

If they can't handle simple stuff like this, how can they intelligently deal
with the question of evolution vs. creationism?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 71        Sat Apr 01, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 01:23 PST

Arminius:  I have copied your questions and will address them in an article I
will upload to the library in the near future.  I am making every attempt to
be thorough, so please be patient.

Some points I would like to make in regard to your questions:

1)  It is untrue that there exists a systematic lack of transitional
    forms in the fossil record.   Any good recent textbook in paleontology
    will yield examples of transitional forms between most all animal and
    plant taxa.  Some gaps do exists and some may always exist.  Given the
    fact that bats are small, lightly build animals dwelling mostly in c
    caves and forests, it is unlikely that many fossils will be found.
    Especially good these days is the fossil record documenting the
    evolution of mammals from therapsid reptiles.

2)  By macroevolution, I take it you are referring to what creationists
    call "real evolution", ie.  the emergence of new species from
    prexisting ones.  I understand that creationists accept microevol-
    utionary changes or "changes within kinds."   I must ask, what kind
    of documentation of a macroevolutionary change would you accept?
    It's not something you can watch on the late show, you know.  If you
    have a couple of hundred years to spare, I might be able to oblige you.

3)  In your previous posting, you have claimed that evolution cannot be
    falsified, then you have outline several situations in which certain
    evidense would falsify evolution.  In fact, evolution can be falsified
    in several ways.  If, for example, the Paluxy man tracks were really
    man tracks, then that would do the trick.

4)  It is assumed that species today are still undergoing evolution and
    that the zoology of the future will have many striking differences.
    It is not logical, however, to expect todays reptiles to evolve
    into mammals.  The mammals evolved from a group of reptiles that are
    extinct today.  The adaptive pressures that shaped mammalian evolution
    are different today.

Creationism cannot ever be considerd a science because its proposed  source of
ultimate casuality is a supernatural entity.  Science, by definition, is
confined to the realm of natural phenomenia.  Supernatural events and entities
cannot be investigated scientifically.  This is not to deny that such
entities, that god, does not exist.  Science cannot make any claims either
way.  When a scientist, or anyone, claims that god does not exists, they are
not rendering scientific fact.  They are expressing a personal belief.  In
science, we cannot invoke the su  supernatural.  Since creationism does, it
cannot be regarded as science.

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 72        Sat Apr 01, 1989
CHES                         at 13:10 CST

Arminius2, your comments on the amino acid and sugar isomers are simply not
correct. In the first place, the "problem" is not that the appropriate isomers
cannot be synthesized, but rather that in most common syntheses the d- and l-
isomers are produced in equal amounts. Hence, the "complaint" that your
creationist friends have is _not_ how the amino acids and sugar were produced,
but how one stereoisomer was preferentially produced over the other.

That of course is also the question that biochemists and molecular biologists
who work in this area are asking. The difference between them and the
creationists is that the scientists have a good understanding of the various
synthetic pathways not only for racematic mixtures (50-50) but also for the
stereospecific forms. In other words, their syntheses can be carried out in
the lab, so there is no reason to believe that they can't occur in nature
(unless you believe that man is superior to God). Hence, instead of throwing
their hands up in despair and shouting "Oh dear me, we can't figure out how
this occurred so it must have occurred by divine intervention", the
evolutionary biologists and chemists are trying to determine the exact
mechanism by which these syntheses occurred in the early years of the earth's
history.

Also, in regard to your comment no. 1 in message 67, as I have pointed out
elsewhere in this catagory, evolution at its core is a molecular event and,
once the molecular aspects are well-understood, it will be carried out in the
lab.

The other comments in that message have been answered over and over again by
the biologists. Why do you have such problems listening to them, Arminius2?
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 73        Sat Apr 01, 1989
CHES                         at 13:11 CST

HJohn, believe me, I would LOVE to see some evidence of a Divine Creator in
the natural world, however all that the creationists on this board are doing
is trying to deceive me with distorted and incorrect claims. The net result of
this kind of bull is to make me distrustful of all religions. Is that what you
want to see happen, HJohn?

Also, I object strenuously to your attempt to smear scientists by claiming
that they view any thought of divine influence in the origin of the universe
as "repugnant." Scientists all-in-all are a good and decent lot, and when the
day comes that some concrete evidence is presented for divine influence, I
contend that scientists will be among the first to embrace it.

I think that your description of a "true scientist" is proper. I also think
that the vast majority of scientists fit into this description (I get the
impression that you don't). I would like to point out, though, that this
description should also apply to religious philosophers. That is, the true
practitioner of religion must approach it from a position of humility. He must
acknowledge the limitations of his own beliefs as well as their strengths. He
must shun dogma. He must be open to the fact that truth can come from any
source, yes even the science of evolution.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 74        Sat Apr 01, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 15:20 PST

One of the reasons that most religions reject creationism is that by trying to
place creationism on a scientific footing, you must open the existense of the
creator to scientific verification.  Science verification of this sort is not
possible, many wrongly conclude that there is a  scientific justification for
atheism.

The nature and existence of god is something that should be outside the
practice of science.  As scientists, we recognize the limits that must be
placed on our knowledge.  When we talk of things outside of nature, of the
supernatural, we are no longer talking as scientists.

Those who maintain a deep religious conviction should not continue to use that
conviction to place restrictions of scientific theory.

 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 75        Sun Apr 02, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 00:46 EST

Ches,

I am open to correction, but you seem to have corrected incorrectly. It makes
no sense for you to say my comments "are simply not correct" and then turn
right around and nearly agree.

I also see an innaccuracy in your presentation of my comments.

You say the problem is not that the appropriate isomers cannot be synthesized
in the lab, but that was not my claim. The Creationist claim is that a
theoretical difficulty exists for the formation of isomers outside the lab, in
a primordial soup scenario.

Now, I understand your reply to be that since they have synthesized these in
the lab it is plausible to believe it could occur in a primordial soup. The
Creationists are saying that the "probability" is not likely under real
conditions.

My comment in message 67 was that Evolution was not testable. You reply that
some day it will be testable because evolution is a molecular event. Well, it
is only proper that you wait until then to refute my comment. My comment is
correct at least now. Evolution is more like a forensic science than a
testable empirical science.

As for the other comments I made which you say biologists have answered, I
merely point out what I said in message 67 about secondary assumptions.

Arminius2






 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 76        Sun Apr 02, 1989
J.BELL4 [Jabel]              at 13:40 PDT

Arminius2 carries the burden for the entire creationist side of this
discussion.  Too bad we can't get a representative of the Institute for
Creation Research (?) on this board.  There are enough of us here -- maybe we
should pass the hat and buy them a membership to GEnie!  Then we could get a
really enthusiastic defense of "creation science."  <wicked grin>.
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 77        Sun Apr 02, 1989
NPC.ARCHIVES [Paul Chernof]  at 19:58 EDT

Arminius,

What I meant was that the discipline of evolution does not cover 1st cause (or
the origins of actual life), but the discipline of biology (which encompasses
evolution) does include origins within its realm. But life is not clean and
dried and some evolutionists do try to cover 1st cause. Perhaps PANICHOLLS can
make a more intelligent comment on the subject.

Paul
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 78        Sun Apr 02, 1989
PANICHOLLS [Phil     ]       at 23:45 PDT

Arminius,
  You keep saying that evolution is not a testible science, yet you keep
proposing possible tests.  The best example was your statement that according
to creationism, intermeidate fossil forms will not be found. Intemediate forms
have been found however, something that is predicted by a general theory of
evolution.  As intermediates have been found, we can assume that creationism
has been falsified.
  I wonder, Arminius, if you consider Quantum physics to be forensic sc
science.  I notice that you have not responded to any of my statements
regarding the fossil record.  8s
 ------------
Category 12,  Topic 7
Message 80        Tue Apr 04, 1989
ARMINIUS2                    at 01:26 EDT

           [This message is 8 pages long so some may wish to skip it.]


P.Nichols,

Here, I respond to your comments about therapsid reptiles, your request that I
wait a few hundred years more, and the concept of falsification.

                                       I
                              Therapsid Reptiles

a. As I have come to understand the argument, the Evolutionist claims that the
lower jaw and the three ear bones of canine mammals evolved from the lower jaw
of therapsid rep%cMsshe LOWER JAW of the therapsid reptile has 6 bones on the right side of the
face and six bones on the left side of the face. The LOWER JAW of Canine
mammals (dogs, wolves etc.) has only one bone on each side of the face.  Also,
therapsid reptiles have ONE EAR BONE between the drum and inner ear, whereas
canine mammals have THREE EAR BONES.  Finally, the jaw joint for the therapsid
reptiles hinges at a different part of the skull than the canine jaw does.

Compared side by side it looks like this:

   Canine mammals: three ear bones go from the drum to inner ear Therapsid
reptiles: one ear bone goes from drum to inner ear

   Canine mammals: lower jaw is one bone on each side of face Therapsid
reptiles: lower jaw is six bones on each side of face

   Canine Mammals: lower jaw hinges with the skull at the squamosal area
Therapsid reptiles: lower jaw hinges with the skull at the quadrate bone. a
                   bone not found in mammals.


c. Now, Evolutionists believe that the many jaw bones of the reptile (the
small bones near the hinge) evolved into the three ear bones of the mammal
(jaw bones evolved into ear bones).  And, the reason canines only have one jaw
bone is because the "other jaw bones" are now evolved into their ear (six jaw
bones evolved into one jaw bone).  And the reason the jaw bone has "moved" to
a new hinge is due to some of the bones shifting into the ear.

d. On the face of it it sounds quite incredulous. In fact, one school text
book which taught evolution put it this way:

              "Of course, there are numerous unresolved
              questions about this story; for example, how did [they]
              hear, and chew while these fantastic changes were
              taking place?  But, despite such functional problems
              there is little doubt that it happened."


e. Now the evidence against these changes come from a simple consideration of
what the transformation would require. The hinge would have to shift to a new
location, five bones of the lower jaw would have to break away from the
largest bone. The top of the jaw bone ( up where the hinge was) would have to
force its way into the middle ear and form itself into an entirely new kind of
hearing mechanism. While all this was happening two NEW complicated structures
would have to develop in the inner ear simultaneously, the organ of Corti and
the vestibular component of balance.

f. The organ of Corti, peculiar to mammals, comprises some 3000 arches placed
side by side so as to form a tunnel, and along with its nervous connections it
makes for a tremendously complex formation. Add to this the vestibular
component of balance, which includes the semi-circular canals in planes at
right angles to each other, and you have plenty of reason to doubt evolution
could have effected such changes.

g. In other words I doubt seriously that the skulls offered by evolutionists
as intermediate transitions are correctly interpreted. But, at the same time I
have no affirmative explanation to offer for them. So although I am unsure as
to what they are I am more sure as to what they are not.

h. I think you could appreciate my doubts a little better if you were to
imagine what would happen to your interpretation if a fully developed mammal
jaw was discovered at a level lower than the fossils it was supposed to have
evolved from. If that were to occur it would prove these fossils had not been
transitional to start with, and the entire interpretation would have to be
reworked. My point?  I feel the interpretation could be reworked with little
difficulty.

i. Creationists have a more scientific argument, however. They argue that a
modern understanding of genetics would make your interpretation impossible. In
view of the fact generations upon generations of fruit flies and e-coli
bacteria have been interbreeded, isolated, bombarded with radiation and
exposed to diverse heat and cold environments, the lab has been unable to get
any thing to evolve except fruit flies, and ecoli bacteria!  It is true that
micro evolutionary changes are brought about, but in no case is a macro
evolutionary change achieved. Fruit flies beget fruit flies and ecoli begets
ecoli. Apply that principle to your fossils and you have good reason to doubt
they could be a bridge between reptiles and mammals.

j. For the evolutionist the entire argument rests upon a similarity in
structure. But, Creationists point out that similarities (homologies) are
known to develop independently. Here I quote one such example:

    "An edifice of presumed relationships has been built up from the
    careful study of homologous structures-not least from the study
    of bones in the skull of reptiles. However, does such study still
    support evolution?  Recently a bone in the floor of the skull that
    lies between the eyes of amphisbaenian lizards has been causing
    trouble. In other lizards this bone, the orbitosphenoid, is formed
    in the normal way from a cartilaginous precursor. It was presumed
    that this also occurred in amphisbaenians and that the bones unusual
    thickness was an adaptation to their burrowing habit. Now it has
    been found out it develops in the embryo in quite a different
    way-from soft tissue instead of cartilage. Because of this it
    fails the test of homology, although it completely mimics `normal'
    orbitosphenoid bones in other lizards. Does it derive from a similar
    genotype? Could this kind of phenomenon have been more widespread
    than previously believed? An anatomist, Dr R. Presley of University
    College, Cardiff, has written: `...this apparently obscure finding seems
    to me in light of my present knowledge of the subject to have shaken the
    philosophical and logical framework of comparative biology to a very
    serious extent, and lots of people ought to be worried by it. I bet they
    aren't"  (Adam and Evolution pg 41,42 by Michael Pitman)

            II. What, you want me to wait ANOTHER few hundred years?

You will find I answered that argument before you even made it. In message 67
item 4 I pointed out that millions of years had already gone by. Nascent
organs and appendages ought to be emerging even now. Yet they are not. To say
that the right conditions haven't occurred yet requires us to reject the
evidence before our own eyes in favor of a secondary assumption.

                          III. Is Evolution Testable?

I made two comments in message 67 regarding the non-testability of Macro
Evolution.

First, I pointed out it did not fall into the same realm of testable science
as does the theory of electricity or the theory of gravity. I then went on to
compare it to a forensic science which reconstructs circumstantial evidence.
It is not testable because it can not be demonstrated in the lab or directly
observed. The fruit fly and e-coli experiments have failed to produce a macro
evolutionary change and the whole theory is over burdened with hypothesis. It
is not testably proven.

Second, I said that Macro Evolution was not falsifiable. I feel you have
answered this second statement quite well. Your point about the man tracks was
well taken, and my own point about what would happen if a mammal fossil was
found falls in line with your argument. In other words Evolution is
theoretically falsifiable and I concede that point to you.

However, Creationism falls into the same category. I think you are equally in
a position to admit that Creationism is falsifiable. It could be falsified if
macroevolution ever resulted from the fruit fly experiments or if a living
example of macro evolution occurred today, or if a fossil was discovered which
removed all reasonable doubt.

                                  IN Summary

I think the evidence you offer falls considerably short of what I had in mind
as a transitional form. However, I see why you regard it as transitional. I
pointed out though that your evidence does contain a hypothetical element that
could be reinterpreted. I also pointed out that modern genetic theory as
evidenced in the fruit fly experiments would indicate your interpretation had
to be wrong. Also, the fact that homologies (similar structures) are capable
of independent formation would cast reasonable doubt on your interpretation as
well. You ask me to wait another few hundred years, but the millions that I
have waited should be enough. Nascent organs and appendages should be emerging
today, but none are. Evolution is overburdened with hypothesis. Evolution is a
forensic science, and is not testably proven.  However, it is theoretically
falsifiable, but then again Creationism is also.

Arminius2