Re: Evolution is alive and well
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:33:41 -0500 (EST)
At 05:05 PM 10/15/98 -0400, Bill Hamilton wrote:
>Moorad wrote
>>>>I am sure that a dedicated evolutionist would conclude that modern animals
>>>>developed somewhere else in the universe and landed here on earth after
>they
>>>>were dully developed.
>>>
>I wrote
>
>>>If one did, I doubt he'd be listened to, because he would have no evidence.
>>> Evolutionists theorizing about the development of life on earth have the
>>>fossil record and existing life on earth to study and gather evidence from.
>>> An evolutionist claiming a fossil had been transported from Alpha Centauri
>>>would have no evidence to back up his assertions.
>
>Moorad wrote
>
>>I found the following in the October 6, 1998 issue of the Christian Science
>>Monitor.
>>
>>
>>New Major: University of Washington Offers Astrobiology
>>
>>Want to spend your life searching for space aliens? The University of
>>Washington says it has a place for you. The school says it has received a
>>five-year, $2 million grant from the National Science Foundation to set up
>>an astrobiology program so people can major in the science of searching the
>>universe for other forms of life. It would be the first specific program in
>>astrobiology.
>>
>It would be interesting to see how the report in the press compares -- or
>fails to compare -- with the course syllabus. A course in astrobiology
>could deal with the constraints on life as we know it, and what places in
>the universe might satisfy those constraints. Or it might consider where
>life could occur if some of the constaints were relaxed. But a newspaper
>writeup is likely to be pretty inaccurate, even in a generally reputable
>paper like CSM.
>
>But I agree that such a course offering sounds pretty speculative. Still,
>it's not an indication of how all evolutionists think. In order to have a
>theory of evolution in another solar system gain any credence at all, I
>would think a researcher would have to be able to present evidence that
>life exists on that planet and evidence that its development has followed
>an evolutionary path. IOW he's have to have fossils and descriptions of
>contemporary life on that planet, as well as evidence that his evidence
>actually originated on the planet in question. A pretty tall order, I
>think.
>Bill Hamilton
My contention is that a scientist who considers the theory of evolution more
than a working scientific hypothesis would always seek a scientific answer
to the question of origins. I do not know under what conditions such a
scientist would consider the question of origins not a scientific question.
Moorad