Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay

At 08:24 PM 1/29/2007, George Murphy wrote:
>& endorses a variety of creationism - the religious position that
>states that belief in God is incompatible with acceptance of
>evolution. Evolutionism & creationism agree in their primary
>implication & both are wrong.

@@ But I would say that over 90% of "creationists" don't understand
that there are various theories of evolution and are actually
thinking that the "science of evolution" is addressing "the origin of
life on earth" ---- the same as the definition of Darwinism and Evolutionism.

They see atheists in the forefront promoting "evolution" so it is a
logical conclusion for busy people who don't want to take the time to
look more deeply into things to think that the evolutionary theory
that is being pushed is incompatible with belief in God . They
prefer to put their trust in what professing Christians say about it
because they "know" that they can't trust the opinions of atheists /
secular humanists / secular progressives when it comes to the matter
of "origins".

~ Janice

>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>Janice Matchett
>To: <mailto:Pattle.P.Pun@wheaton.edu>Pattle Pun ;
><mailto:asa@calvin.edu>American Scientific Affiliation ;
><mailto:kbmill@ksu.edu>Keith Miller
>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 6:53 PM
>Subject: Re: [asa] Jonathan Wells essay
>
>At 06:12 PM 1/29/2007, Pattle Pun wrote:
>>** Reply Requested When Convenient **
>>
>>I agree with Jon Wells comments.
>
>@ Wells is talking about Darwinism, and that is Evolutionism---the
>philosophical position that states evolutionary theory is
>incompatible with belief in God
>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Youth%20Page/FishWars3.html
>
>~ Janice ... Pope John Paul: "There are several theories of evolution..."
>
>
>> >>> Keith Miller <<mailto:kbmill@ksu.edu>kbmill@ksu.edu> 1/29/2007
>> 2:31 PM >>>
>>Below is an essay by Jonathan Wells on Evolution Sunday. I post
>>without comment.
>>
>>Keith
>>
>>
>>__________________________________
>>
>>
>>http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/19634
>>
>>As Jonathan Dudley pointed out in his recent column ("Evolution
>>Sunday not so benign," 1/24), hundreds of Christian churches across
>>America will celebrate Darwin's theory on Feb. 11.
>>
>>Why will they do this? A little background is helpful here.
>>
>>Evolution can mean many things. Broadly speaking, it means simply
>>change over time, something no sane person doubts. In biblical
>>interpretation, it can mean that God created the world over a long
>>period of time rather than in six 24-hour days. In biology, it can
>>mean minor changes within existing species, which we see happening
>>before our eyes.
>>
>>But Darwin's theory claims much more * namely, that all living things
>>are descended from a common ancestor and that their present
>>differences are due to unguided natural processes such as random
>>variations and survival of the fittest. It is not evolution in
>>general, but Darwin's particular theory (Darwinism) that Evolution
>>Sunday celebrates. That's why it is timed to coincide with Charles
>>Darwin's birthday.
>>
>>The idea originated with University of Wisconsin evolutionary
>>biologist Michael Zimmerman after a Wisconsin school board adopted
>>the following policy in 2004: "Students are expected to analyze,
>>review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses
>>and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific
>>evidence and information. Students shall be able to explain the
>>scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. This
>>policy does not call for the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent
>>Design."
>>
>>Zimmerman called the policy a decision "to deliberately embrace
>>scientific ignorance."
>>
>>But experiments have consistently failed to support the hypothesis
>>that variations (including those produced by genetic mutation) and
>>selection (natural or artificial) can produce new species, organs and
>>body plans. And what may have once looked like solid evidence for
>>universal common ancestry (fossils, embryos and molecular
>>comparisons) is now plagued by growing inconsistencies. It is
>>actually the Darwinists who brush aside these awkward facts who
>>"embrace scientific ignorance."
>>
>>Not only did Zimmerman oppose analyzing Darwinism's strengths and
>>weaknesses, but he also appealed to Christian churches for help. Why?
>>
>>Polls have consistently shown that about 40 percent of Americans
>>believe God created the human beings in their present form a few
>>thousand years ago, while another 45 percent believe that humans
>>developed over millions of years from less advanced forms but that
>>God guided the process. Despite their differences, both of these
>>groups accept a central tenet of Christian theology: Human beings
>>were designed and created in the image of God.
>>
>>Darwinism denies this.
>>
>>Darwin himself wrote that he could see "no more design in the
>>variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural
>>selection, than in the course which the winds blow." Although he
>>could not "look at the universe as the result of blind chance,"
>>Darwin saw "no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of design of
>>any kind, in the details." Thus, asserts Darwinist George Gaylord
>>Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that
>>did not have him in mind. He was not planned."
>>
>>Less than 15 percent of Americans accept this view. Yet Darwinists
>>depend heavily on American taxpayers for their financial support.
>>Enlisting Christian clergy to defend "science" or "evolution" is a
>>tactic used to perpetuate that support.
>>
>>For example, Eugenie Scott directs a militantly pro-Darwin
>>organization euphemistically named the National Center for Science
>>Education. As an acknowledged humanist, Scott rejects the Christian
>>worldview, yet she wrote in 2002: "I have found that the most
>>effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One
>>clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school
>>board meeting any day!"
>>
>>To reach skeptics of Darwinism, Scott recommends sugarcoating
>>evolution as change over time. Only after she gets people nodding in
>>agreement to the obvious fact that "the present is different from the
>>past" does Scott introduce them to "The Big Idea" * namely, Darwin's
>>theory. Organizers of Evolution Sunday use the same bait-and-switch.
>>
>>The vast majority of Americans reject Darwinism for good reasons: It
>>doesn't fit the scientific evidence, and it contradicts a central
>>tenet of Christianity. Instead of using Evolution Sunday to celebrate
>>Darwin, churches should use the day to reaffirm the creatorship of
>>God and the value of good science * which includes studying the
>>strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
>>
>>
>>Jonathan Wells has a doctorate in religious studies from Yale and a
>>doctorate in molecular and cell biology from the University of
>>California, Berkeley. He is the author of "The Politically Incorrect
>>Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design."
>>
>>______________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 29 20:48:08 2007