Hmmm, does that make me a Jew agreeing on theology with a Calvinist?
<hehe>
Actually, I believe in *both* creation and evolution.
GOD created both initial life, and the processes by which it could evolve.
(Recall that there was no TV back then...)
:-)
-Ben
> "Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and
> theory
> from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged
> how far
> we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which
> evolution (fact) occurred. "
>
> In other words, that there was an evolutionary change is without
> question, but how that change occured is still being scrutinized.
>
> What's amusing is the the creationist camp isn't necessarily
> disagreeing.
>
> Genesis 2.7: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
> and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> living soul."
>
> Just another way of looking at things..
>
> - Calvin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Davis
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 4:00 PM
> Subject: RE: Georgia may shun "evolution" in schools
>
>
> Oooh - Larry beat me to a sagely definition of scientific theory! And
> he
> did it better! ;^)
>
>
> Jim Davis
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Lyons, Larry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 2:08 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Georgia may shun "evolution" in schools
>
>
> You misunderstand the definition of theory. Stephen J. Gould has put
> this as
> well as anyone else:
>
> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect
> fact"--part of a
> hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to
> hypothesis
> to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is
> "only" a
> theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory.
> If
> evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up
> their
> minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed,
>
> President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in
> Dallas
> when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well,
> it is a
> theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years
> been
> challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the
> scientific
> community to be as infallible as it once was."
> Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories
> are
> different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
> Facts
> are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain
> and
> interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival
> theories
> to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in
> this
> century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the
> outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did
> so by
> Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
>
> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no
> such
> animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic
> and
> mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve
> certainty only
> because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no
> claim
> for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us
> falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In
> science
> "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be
> perverse
> to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to
> rise
> tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics
> classrooms.
>
> Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and
> theory
> from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged
> how far
> we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which
> evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the
> difference
> between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the
> fact of
> evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the
> mechanism of evolution.
>
> - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May
> 1981
>
> Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In
> other
> words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not
> an
> idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
>
> Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond
> reasonable
> doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a
> process
> that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted
> only by
> those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence,
> owing
> to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms
> that
> bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There
> are no
> alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical
> examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts
> about
> evolutionary mechanisms.
> - Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the
> Light
> of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted
> in
> Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press,
> Phoenix
> AZ 1983
>
> --
>
> In other words until you understand the tools are you qualified to
> even
> discuss this on an intelligble basis? If so then please explain how
> Alien
> Abductionists seeded the planet, taking into account current data and
> how
> this theory of yours is a better fit to the data than current theories.
>
>
> larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schuster, Steven [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 2:00 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Georgia may shun "evolution" in schools
>
> Last time I checked it was still the "Theory of Evolution" not the
> "Proof of
> Evolution"
>
> Does that mean I can teach the "Theory of Alien Planet Seedings" as
> well?
>
> _____
>
> From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:53 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Georgia may shun "evolution" in schools
>
> Jeez, are they gonna go back to the rule of thumb as well?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:41 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Georgia may shun "evolution" in schools
>
> I used to live in Georgia. I stress "used to".
>
> http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/29curriculum.html
> <http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/29curriculum.html>
> <http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0104/29curriculum.html>
>
> - Jim
> _____
> _____
> _____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
