From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Fri Oct 10 2003 - 12:22:31 EDT
Loren Haarsma wrote:.
>
> How do we decide? We need people who have taken a long, professional
> look at the evidence AND whom we have some reason to think that they might
> be relatively unbiased. I recommend, in particular, those Christian
> scientists who publicly say that they would be perfectly happy,
> theologically, for the evidence to turn out either way (miracles or
> evolution) since, after all, God could have created and governed
> biological history in whatever way God chose.
> There are some such Christian scientists. What do they conclude when
> they examine the evidence of biological history?
I have often said that evolution (of mankind) is nowhere near obvious to me
from all that I hear. The rhetoric is so high on both sides that it is hard to
separate out fact from emotion. Unfortunately, I do NOT have qualifications in
biological matters.
From all that I gather so far, both sides are absolutely right about the other
side's closed mindedness.
Those who favor evolution shout "FACT, FACT, FACT!" and none will advance a
coherent explanation of a theory that works. They constantly muddle fact and
theory in their arguments. (Gravity is a fact, Newton had a theory:
Electromagnetism is a fact, Maxwell had a theory, They all shout down any
negative comments about Darwin while simultaneously acknowledging that his
predictions about the fossil record did not come true and that his theory is
flawed. In no other field would this situation be allowed to persist. But
evolution should not even be allowed any possibility of being falsified. Go
see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html to understand why.
Those who decry evolution and conclude that it is theory of atheists, start by
defining evolution as random mutation and natural selection and call it
Darwinism as if it were a religion. Perhaps this good, since scientists are
unwilling to name the theory so that one can distinguish it from fact. BTW I
cannot even find the word "mutation" in my copy of Darwin's "Origins of
Species". the anti evolutionists rule God out by definition and then complain
because it is Godless. Johnson is a great example.
There is zero objectivity that I can see. Neither side is willing to lay down
conditions whereby their position could be disproved by evidence. You know,
predictions in the usual scientific sense. If Johnson has provided such a list
I'd love to see it.
Several weeks ago I posted a question as to whether anyone could give me any
good reason for why evolution may not be so for mankind and that God may have
created mankind independently. Only one brave soul ventured forth and promptly
got his head beat in by Glenn. (No surprise, Because Glenn will tell you that
he wrong, wrong, wrong!.) I hate to be negative, but neither Glenn nor anybody
else was there when it happened. It is all inferential logic and not
necessarily true.
IMO
> From what I can tell,
> although Johnson has some supporters, quite a large majority of them
> disagree with Johnson. They think the evidence favors evolution.
> Unfortunately, Johnson has made some nasty accusations about the motives
> of those Christian scientists who disagree with him....
And of course nobody on this list ever makes any mudslinging accusations
against those who disagree with evolutionary theory do they?
Walt
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 10 2003 - 12:22:30 EDT