avi@pegasus.UUCP (02/15/84)
I am getting confused with this discussion. I believe in neither creation or in evolution. I "believe" that the present state of the universe, and of living beings, can ultimately be accounted for by applying the laws of mathematics (often only on a statistical basis) and the derived laws of the natural sciences -- such as physics and chemistry. I do not believe in the "evolution" of Darwin, except as a simple model of the way he viewed the world. I believe that living entities evolve on the basis of chemical (usually chromosomal) changes that occur due to random events (such as radiation) or recombination of the qualities associated with two (or more) entities (as in sexual reproduction). The actual physically evident changes may be minimal, or may totally change the appearance of the involved entity. For example, a defect in a pituitary hormone can cause the individual to be much taller - or shorter - than her parents. This is consistent with the newer models of evolution. There is no longer a gap in the fossils found in adjacent strata, and many other anomalies are explained. Some things still need to be explained, and I am confident that the theory will evolve to encompass new data. I also do not believe in creation, for many reasons. Which model should I choose? Should I choose one of the Christian models, or an oriental one (such as the Hindu myth of existing in one of an infinite regression of cycles of creation and destruction), or ... None of them have any proof that everything happened THEIR way. I am skeptical (but mildly open-minded) when viewing evidence that shows that some part of the "current" evolutionary theory may be inaccurate. However, this does not prove that any PARTICULAR creationist theory is right. Even if the evidence is not faked or false, it may just mean that the present theory did not account for it. Maybe the next evolutionary theory will be the right one -- not the current creationist pipe dream. To me, it is just as reasonable to interpret the Paluxy evidence (which I do not trust) in the following manner. "Eons ago, a race of aliens who were vaguely humanoid came to visit this planet. They walked among the dinosaurs in the valley, and decided that times were too rough here. So, they travelled for a few million years, and finally came back. A few got shipwrecked, lost their science, and settled in mesopotamia. Some even wrote a few books. The rest became Thelemites. How is this silly scenario any worse at explaining things? It assumes that something like "evolution" may have happened elsewhere. (Has any creationist even tried to prove that evolution could not happen under any conceivable set of circumstances in the universe? They seem to focus on earth.) All life on this planet (and eventually even the leftover humans) would have originated elsewhere. There is even scriptural "support" for this sarcastic view. Do you remember the angels who fell to earth? In summary, the real issue (for me) is whether we choose to believe a randomly made-up creation story, or a fixed once-in-a-Darwins-lifetime made-up theory, OR a constantly evolving theory that can be adjusted as the facts come in, and can even support experimentation. For me, the choice is obvious. The choice is for a scientifically verifiable attempt at understanding, not dogmatically trying to warp the data to fit a model we already decided on. -- -=> Avi E. Gross @ AT&T Information Systems Laboratories (201) 576-6241 suggested paths: [ihnp4, allegra, cbosg, hogpc, ...]!pegasus!avi