ebs@mcnc.UUCP (07/20/83)
Ken Cochran apparantly did NOT read the last paragraph of "God
and Science". I NEVER implied that I do not believe in God (though
whether I do or not is irrelavent).
My point is simply that people who are willing to accept the
beneficial results of science (Ken Cochran included) should also
be willing to give fair trial to results which are contrary to
their personal assumptions (e.g. evolution vs. creation). Mr.
Cochran also dismisses my argument because "whether evolution
came from strict adherance to the scientific method is debatable".
I agree with this; however, at this point in history, evolution
is the MOST SCIENTIFICALLY CONSISTANT "theory" that we have.
Creationism, despite the irrational rambling to the contrary,,
has NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.
I do not appreciate having my argument changed by someone
whose only apparant purpose is to mislead.
Eddie Stokes (mcnc/ebs)pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (07/22/83)
Ken Cochran apparantly did NOT read the last paragraph of "God
and Science". I NEVER implied that I do not believe in God (though
whether I do or not is irrelavent).
My point is simply that people who are willing to accept the
beneficial results of science (Ken Cochran included) should also
be willing to give fair trial to results which are contrary to
their personal assumptions (e.g. evolution vs. creation).
I agree, but does this willingness to give a fair trial business apply
to evolutionists as well as creationists? It seems not. A while back
I submitted an article entitled "Faith in Evolution", the substance of
which went unscathed by any who responded. Many responded to express their
disdain or "amusement" at the suggestion that evolutionism (not evolution--
do you understand the difference?) is a position requiring faith, even blind
faith. No Scripture was quoted in the article, no religious doctrine was
propounded. Yet respondents insisted the discussion belonged in net.religion
only. (I submitted the article to net.misc also). The article looked at
the reasons evolutionists insist creationism is a religion and showed that
the same reasoning applies to evolutionism.
Mr. Cochran also dismisses my argument because "whether evolution
came from strict adherance to the scientific method is debatable".
I agree with this; however, at this point in history, evolution
is the MOST SCIENTIFICALLY CONSISTANT "theory" that we have.
Creationism, despite the irrational rambling to the contrary,,
has NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.
I do not appreciate having my argument changed by someone
whose only apparant purpose is to mislead.
Eddie Stokes (mcnc/ebs)
The theory of evolution is the most scientifically *accepted* theory we have.
There is much scientific evidence to support this theory. There is also
much scientific evidence that contridicts this theory and supports a creation
theory. Evolutionism and Creationism are systems of belief based on the
scientific evidences for each. Both these "isms" require an element of faith
since the evidence upon which they are based is not conclusive. Both
evolutionism and creationism are not purely scientific. Although evolution
does not preclude believe in God, evolutionism does. God is unnecessary to
evolution and evolutionism is the only comfortable framework for atheistic
belief and personal autonomy. I think this is a big reason why many consider
creationism unacceptable. The rejection and suppression of the scientific
evidences for creation as a reaction to creationistic belief constitutes
bigotry. If you want to find scientific evidences for creation you have
to seek them actively, they are not presented accurately in the scientific
community or to the general public. On the other hand, one has only to be
passive to have evolution presented to him and evolutionism inculcated as
a word view. In debates with creationists, evolutionists insist that certian
critera be met by creationist in presenting their "evidence" (no ad hoc
explanations, presention of hard emperical data, etc.) This is rightly done.
The only problem is that the evolutionists often feel justified in indulging
in the same type of ad hoc explanations and fallacies of reasoning they accuse
creationists of. I submitted another article from Origins Research entitled
"Debating Origins" describing this. It got no response. (I don't think
it got out to the net. I may submit it again for your benefit or "amusement")
In my "Faith in Evolution" article I challenged readers to subscribe
to the paper from which it came, Origins Research. This publication
undertakes a critical examination of theories of origins. It accepts
only scientific evidence and the use of the scientific method in consideration
of evolution or creation. No Scripture is used to support creation--ever.
I am sure that anyone willing to consider with an open mind what Origins
Reasearch has to say will think twice before they say "creationism
has nothing to do with science". Articles and challenges are submitted by
both evolutionists and creationists.
Paul Dubuc