Hi all evolution debtors: I've been following your discussion with some interest, and I'd like to make a few points of my own.
> However, I know some will choose "faith" over science, so this is one > debate that will change nobody's mind. It is very normal for evolutionists to consider their belief system as 'science', and all opposing belief systems as 'faith'. This is a grave presumption and a gross over simplification. Folks tend to think of evolution as one thing; really, it is a family of things: -'evolution' can refer to the observed and testable notion that species diverge, and are subject to selection pressure; this is an *observation*. -it can refer the the extrapolation of that notion backward in time to the point where all life is assumed to have arisen from a spontaneously generated first cell; this is a *conjecture*. -it can refer to the *theoretical* notions that attempt to explain the above; this is a scientific *theory*. -it can refer to a metaphysical system that attempts to explain the whole universe without recourse to a creator of any kind; this is *philosophy*. Each of these different meanings of the word 'evolution' can prosper or fail *independently* of the others. Just as evolution is family of ideas, so is 'creationism' really a whole mob of different opinions. We have: -6 day biblical litteralists. -Religiously independent creationists, who believe that life was created by a divine being, but who don't believe that that creation is literally recorded in Genesis. -Non-religious creationists, who think that life on earth was created by some other life form more advanced than ours. -ID (intelligent design) theorists, who say that they don't have a clue where life came from except that they are sure that it didn't arise spontaneously. -Anthropic principal philosophers, and Deists, who think that there is no creator as such, but the universe some how 'needed' to make life in order to 'know itself'. As for me, I accept as observable fact that species change, and are subject to selection pressure. I accept Darwin's theory as to how these facts interact to produce change over time. I am very suspicious about the claims that all life forms on earth arose from a common ancestor, for two main reasons. First, because the hard evidence for this is questionable at best; second, because the existing *theory* of evolution can't really explain how gross anatomical changes could come about by small mutations. I reject completely the notion that the first cell arose spontaneously for three main reasons. First, there is not the *slightest* hard evidence for this--it's just a creation myth told by folks who *call* themselves scientists. Second, no one has been able to show, experimentally, how such a thing might have happened. All such experiments have demonstrated with finality that no conceivable mixture of chemicals, subjected to no conceivable energy inputs, will ever produce anything more sophisticated that roofing tar. Third, the existing science of chemistry can show, with proper scientific rigor, that it is theoretically *impossible* for proteins, and other complex organic molecules, to arise spontaneously. In other words, we not only cannot demonstrate the spontaneous development of complex organics in the lab, we *can* explain why it does not, and cannot, ever happen. To believe in the spontaneous development of life on earth is not just *non* science, it is *anti* science. Ray Andrews, Vancouver, Canada -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
