I'd hoped that my intro " Addressed to the many evolution vs. creationism e-mails i've recieved the last few months:" would have covered that confusion. My response encompasses months of evolution vs. creationism e-mails. I had refrained from responding prior, but felt that the opportunity presented itself today in the e-mail topic and my current mood. I did not intend to sound confrontational or accusing towards any specific e-mail author especially Diana Tomchick.
-B On 1/9/08, Diana Tomchick <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't know if I totally understand where you're coming from here, > but I simply posted some info about a publication that anyone can > download for free and read. If you read the publication, you will see > that it addresses the fact that many scientists are also religious; > the publication does not mock religion and its practitioners, and I > did not intend to mock them with my posting, either. I simply > intended to encourage people to access the publication, read it and > think about it/discuss it with other people. There is even a > "Frequently Asked Questions" section of the publication, in case you > have unanswered questions about the subject. > > I felt this was pertinent to this list serve as the topic of biology > and evolution (with respect to troglobitic creatures) is a common one > in caving. > > Diana > > On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Brian Riordan wrote: > > > Addressed to the many evolution vs. creationism e-mails i've > > recieved the last few months: > > > > What alarms me the most, is not only how often this list serve is > > used to debate science, evolution and creationism, but how there > > are no questions about creationism, only derogatory comments > > towards creationists and the sad, misguided people who can't get > > through life without an imaginary friend holding their hand (on a > > side note, if you only make criticisms, YOU are the narrow-minded > > one, usually a faux paux among such a liberal crowd). If you get > > an ego boost by boasting how scientifically superior you are by > > mocking Christians in a crowd of people you know are almost sure to > > support everything you say on the matter (which is pretty > > cowardly) then fine. But this isn't the forum for it (at least I > > thought it wasn't). > > > > If you have QUESTIONS on the matter, state your thoughts/ > > arguments/ questions in a non-argumentative way, as if you're truly > > hungry for another perspective, and not simply hoping to hear your > > sentiments echoed back off a crowd of like-minded people, and I > > promise I'd do my best to answer from a different point of view. > > Besides, constructive criticism or questioning only encourages > > thought- which I welcome. > > > > I hope this is recieved the way I intended. > > > > -Brian > > > > PS. Most Creationists i've talked to don't argue against evolution > > as a process in life. It's the evolution as a cause of life that > > science and logic breaks down. > > > > > > > > On 1/9/08, Diana Tomchick <[email protected]> > > wrote: While perusing the latest issue of Nature magazine, I > > happened upon > > this editorial. You can download the 88-page booklet from the > > National Academies Press web site for free (you must register with an > > email address and a zip code first). It looks like an interesting > > read. > > > > I reprint the editorial below for your interest: > > > > Nature volume 451 (10 January 2008) > > > > "Spread the word: > > > > Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research > > depends on it should explain why." > > > > Three cheers for the US National Academy of Sciences for publishing > > an updated version of its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism > > (see http://www.nap.edu/sec). The document succinctly summarizes what > > is and isn't science, provides an overview of evidence for evolution > > by natural selection, and highlights how, time and again, leading > > religious figures have upheld evolution as consistent with their view > > of the world. > > > > For a more specific and also entertaining account of evolutionary > > knowledge, see palaeontologist Kevin Padian's evidence given at the > > Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (see http://tinyurl.com/2nlgar). Padian > > destroys the false assertions by creationists that there are critical > > gaps in the fossil record. He illustrates the fossil-rich paths from > > fish to land-based tetrapod, from crocodile to dinosaur to feathered > > dinosaur to bird, from terrestrial quadruped to the whale, and more > > besides. > > > > Creationism is strong in the United States and, according to the > > Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, worryingly on the > > rise in Europe (see http://tinyurl.com/2knrqy ). But die-hard > > creationists aren't a sensible target for raising awareness. What > > matters are those citizens who aren't sure about evolution — as much > > as 55% of the US population according to some surveys. > > > > As the National Academy of Sciences and Padian have shown, it is > > possible to summarize the reasons why evolution is in effect as much > > a scientific fact as the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth > > round the Sun, even though there are plenty of refinements to be > > explored. Yet some actual and potential heads of state refuse to > > recognize this fact as such. And creationists have a tendency to play > > on the uncertainties displayed by some citizens. Evolution is of > > profound importance to modern biology and medicine. Accordingly, > > anyone who has the ability to explain the evidence behind this fact > > to their students, their friends and relatives should be given the > > ammunition to do so. Between now and the 200th anniversary of Charles > > Darwin's birth on 12 February 2009, every science academy and society > > with a stake in the credibility of evolution should summarize > > evidence for it on their website and take every opportunity to > > promote it. > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Diana R. Tomchick > > Associate Professor > > University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center > > Department of Biochemistry > > 5323 Harry Hines Blvd. > > Rm. ND10.214B > > Dallas, TX 75390-8816, U.S.A. > > Email: [email protected] > > 214-645-6383 (phone) > > 214-645-6353 (fax) > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Visit our website: http://texascavers.com > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > Diana R. Tomchick > Associate Professor > University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center > Department of Biochemistry > 5323 Harry Hines Blvd. > Rm. ND10.214B > Dallas, TX 75390-8816, U.S.A. > Email: [email protected] > 214-645-6383 (phone) > 214-645-6353 (fax) > >
