So what? The fact is indisputable, but your spin on its answer certainly
is.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Glenn Morton <grmorton@waymark.net>
> To: J.D. Guzman <jguzman3@panam.edu>; Evolution Reflector
<evolution@calvin.edu>
> Subject: Re: Yet more denigrating of Apologists (was Why?)
> Date: Thursday, April 23, 1998 7:44 PM
>
> At 02:00 AM 4/24/98 -0500, J.D. Guzman wrote:
>
> >Well although I haven't been active in this discussion I am going to
jump in
> >here. Glenn I would be delighted if creatioism were taught in schools.
I
> >think it would be wonderful to allow students to decide for themselves
what
> >theory they would like to accept.
>
> Wow, my note to Ron wasn't read. :-( I said that it was ok by me to
teach
> creationism in schools so long as BOTH sets of evidences are taught.
>
> >
> >As to your question, I would allow evidence for and against creationism
to
> >be presented, only if the same were applied to evolution. As much as
people
> >would like to think that the theory of evolution is fact and proven,
that is
> >not the case. There is evidence that goes directly against the theory,
and
> >none of this is even mentioned in the schools.
> >
>
> Absolutely. Such a place like this list would provide lots of
information
> for the children.
>
> >Behe's book is an example of things that the theory of evolution has
failed
> >to explain, and, that if they continue to be unexplained, present a
great
> >challange to the theory. However, Behe's book is only one example of an
> >area that evolution hasn't been able to address properly. There is also
the
> >fact that evolution of the type that would give rise to the diverse
amount
> >of species that we have hasn't been observed. Furthermore, there
hasn't
> >been any experiment done that would even merrit a conclusion that we all
> >come from a common ancestor.
>
> Not even the fact that we are about 98% genetically identical to a chimp?
>
> >
> >Another thing is abiogenesis. It is a known fact that no one has been
able
> >to show that the building blocks of life could have formed randomly.
The
> >expiriments that have been done have all been in labratory, and almost
every
> >aspect of the expiriment is controled. Such expiriments prove nothing,
> >after all, the conditions billions of years ago were far from labratory
> >conditions.
>
> Actually this may not be true. see Gerald Joyce, Directed Evolution,
> Scientific American Dec. 1993. Long functional molecules are found by
> randomly searching all the time. In fact, industries are now using random
> mutation and selection to find new drugs. If it didn't work, industry
> wouldn't do it.
>
> >
> >So as you can see, although evolution has done a great deal in allowing
us
> >to understand how change occurs in animal species at the
microevolutionary
> >scale, it has done nothing at the macroevolutionary scale.
> >
> >So fine present the evidence for and against creationism, but do the
same
> >for evolution.
>
> Only 8 mutations are enough to make radical changes in morphology between
> two species of monkeyflower one which appears designed to attrat
> hummingbirds and the other designed to attract bumblebees. Modern data
shows
> that much less mutation is required for major structural changes than you
> would think.
>
> glenn
>
> Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
>
> and
>
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
>