Jim- Happy and peaceful! But I think creationists are, in fact, making more assumptions than the evolutionists. First, there is no one single evolutionary theory but several theories of evolution. Beneath that there are thousands of verifiable facts. Second. The assumption you point to made by evolutionists is made not on faith (as it is for the ID folks) but based on that geological and verifiable, some would argue, undeniable set of facts. That's the difference in my mind.
BTW- does that mean one can't still have faith- I think not. It never ceases to amaze me why some make this whole issue one of either evolution OR faith. I can't help but think that any and all supreme beings would find such narrow focus a bit humorous (or provocation to wrath depending on whether one's YHWH is the loving or the vengeful type). :) It would be equally bold (and wrong, btw) to assume that all who believe intelligent design plays into it are equally wacky. For example, if one reads the stories purportedly connected to scientology and compares those to the seeking of say the Dali Lama one is not dealing with the same spirit of inquiry. :) Finally, I don't see that any evolutionary theory places the concept of miracle into the mix. If one presumes to produce the current state of affairs on the planet (and universe) from a zero point (or less!) then the universe that exists tomorrow is infinitely unlikely (nay impossible!). But that misses the point of probablility theory. That requires miracle. If, on the other hand, one presumes that todays universe exists (seems to me that it does) then tomorrow's is quite probable or even determined (largely). The same for yesterday, the day before, the day before . . . Within the set of facts and theories of evolution and billions, nay trillions of events, and billions of years of geological time today's world or even this set of bizarre symbols and thoughts isn't improbable at all. :) Happy New Year to all. Tim -----Original Message----- From: jim guinee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 12/31/2005 10:24 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences Subject: Re: ID ruling > From: "Shearon, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Jim- I'm not sure why that is puzzling to you. A fact is something that = > did happen at one time. It in no way implies that the excact same thing = > has to be even possible again. Oh, you're quite right. I should have been more specific than flippant. It just seems that I am to accept one incredible coincidence after another to go from no universe to very complex one, and more than that, the incredible circumstances that all had to occur in order for intelligent life to be on earth. That does not prove God did it. But it sure seems evolutionists are making a lot more dubious assumptions than religionists are. An intelligent being who got the ball rolling seems to my simple mind much more logical than there was nothing that caused that ball to exist but yet IT DOES and moreover the ball keeps getting more and more sophisticated by a long string of "miracles" At any rate, happy new year to all I am sure we can all agree on THAT sentiment :) Jim Guinee --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<winmail.dat>>
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
