>Allen & Diane Roy <Dianeroy@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> A. The sedimentary rocks are as much as millions of years old.
>B. Fossils represent the record of life forms which existed over
>millions of years.
>
> Both of these assumptions are not provable, and are accepted on faith.
huh? did radiometric dating and the physics which supports it vanish in
thin air? "on faith" may mean something different to you and me. "Proof,"
as such is a mathematical concept, not a biological one. However, the
evidence for an ancient earth is immense. Faith usually doesn't require any
evidence at all.
>For this reason I believe that this third definition of evolution should
>really be called Evolutionism. >The Theory of Evolution is thus really
>Evolutionism. So often we hear that the controversy is >between
>Evolution and Creationism, but in reality it is Evolutionism verses
>Creationism. And we
>also hear the argument that because Evolution is a fact (Definition 2)
>then that proves Evolution
>(Definition 3) is true. Not so. I believe that there are three 'isms'
>which dominate the quest for
>origins:
the debate is mostly between a small segment of Christians who want Genesis
to be literally, scientifically true and the rest of the world. Physics
works or we wouldn't be able to have this debate over computers. Physics
says the earth (and those sedimentary rocks) are very old. That's a tad
more than an article of faith.
> The Creationary Catastrophism assumptions are based on interpretations of
>the eyewitness evidence
>given in the Bible.
There is also eye witness evidence that Spider Woman gave birth to the
world. There is also eyewitness evidence that the world was created by
Brahaman from a cosmic egg. Etc.
>However, Creationary Catastrophism is no more (or no less) religious than
>Evolutionism. Religion
>(according to Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary) is a belief,
>activity, or cause pursued with
>fervor and devotion. One does not have to believe in a supernatural
>being or power to be religious.
however, it does not follow that *anything* persued with ferver and
devotion is a religion. I'm pretty passionate about belly dancing. I have a
feeling it doesn't quite count as a religion.
> And anyone who as observed the discussion on this net and even more so
>on Talk.Origins can see
>the fervor and devotion to which all sides of the issues pursue their
>causes and beliefs.
it would be trivially easy to prove conclusively that all Christians
worshiped Satan. (Only the middle eastern religions like Christianity have
Satan as a component, "Lucifer" means "light" and Christ repeatedly refers
to himself using "light" metaphors, etc.) If I and a very large group of
people started saying that all Chrisians were Satanists. I have a feeling
the Christians would advocate the negative position with *great* passion!
People don't like to be misrepresented or lied about. It makes them very
angry and very passionate indeed.
> I think that in trying to define terms we need to seriously and closely
>consider the differing
>assumptions which we all have on this issue. Otherwise we will be
>talking past each other endlessly.
it's pretty endless anyway--sort of. I think that McCain openly opposing
the religious right, however, is a death-knell of their already-waning
power. Perhaps eventually it will all die out like the controversy over
extinction (which ended in the early 19th century) or the rejection of
"micro" evolution which seems to have stopped only in the last few years.
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 15:57:52 EST