From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation vs. Evolution
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:40:56 GMT


   In article <n0e24t@ofa123.fidonet.org> 
Richard.Rearden.@.914/901@f8.n10.z1.fidonet.org provides a heaping helping
of Creationist dreck...

   Richard, just to start, let me point out to you that your post is
highly offensive to a large number of people.  I will endeavor to show you
why I make this claim, but I want you to know beforehand where I am coming
from.

> Just to establish a little basis on the subject.  Last time I was in a
> biology at a local junior college, the instructor, who came highly
> recommended, start his class with this statement.  "Evolution is a fact,
> and there is nothing that can prove to me otherwise." 

   Richard, evolution IS a fact, much as gravity is a fact.  This last is
just for the record, but I will come back to it in just a moment.

> So, hear is intro to Creation 101a.  Is Evolution a fact or theory.
> Most will say it's a theory, but there is nothing else to dispute it.
> The true Evolutionist will state that it is a fact of life.

   Sorry, nice try.  You seem to be confused over the definitions of the
words "fact" and "theory" as they are used in science.  A "fact", in science,
means an empirically established happening.  For example, I pickup a book
and let it go.  The book falls to the floor.  This is a fact which is
given the name "gravity".  Now to explain the fact of "gravity", scientists
come up with mechanisms, which are called "theories".  For "gravity", the two
most common theories are Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, and Einstein's
theory of General Relativity.

   Now, just like gravity, evolution has both "fact" portions and "theory"
portions.  The fact of evolution covers such observations as descent with
modification and changes in allele frequencies over time.  The theories of
evolution describe the mechanisms by which descent with modification manifests
itself, and the rate/importance/cause of changing allele frequencies.  Since
such is the case, no reasonable human being familiar with the topic would
claim that evolution is solely a fact or solely a theory.

> Christian's, that small fraction of the world's population, Claim it is a
> lie, a false teaching, a sign of the times'.

   Here is where you start to be truly offensive.  The vast majority of
Christians claim that evolution is both a fact and a theory.  Only a small
minority of Christians, who have allied themselves with a specific interpretive
lens for Scripture, claim that "it is a lie, a false teaching, a sign of
the times'."  Now, you may well be a Christian, and you may have chosen to
limit yourself to a particular interpretive paradigm, but you do NOT speak
for Christianity.  By claiming to do so, you are being offensive to others
who hold honest disagreement with your interpretation of Scripture.

> Here is whatEvolution truly is.  All Evolution is, is man's attempt to
> prove there is no God.

   This claim is highly offensive to the vast majority of Christians who
do not hold your view.  What you are attempting to do is set up a litmus
test for Christianity.  That such a litmus test fails to mention Christ
in any way should, at minimum, give you pause to consider the possibility
that you are speaking from a pedestal of incredible hubris.

   If it helps, here is what Evolution truly is.  All Evolution is, is a
mixture of fact and theory.  These facts and theories are obtained through
the study of world.  For Christians this physical world is a prime witness
to God, "For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world,
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, *even* his
eternal power and Godhead".  For others this view of the world may not hold,
but in any event Evolution by and of itself says nothing about the existence/
nonexistence of God.  Only the beliefs you bring with you to this study have
to do with God.

> Two different detectives may come up with two different theories.

   Would you also agree that two different Christians may come up with two
different interpretations of Scripture?  This I ask out of curiousity, since
what you have written above would appear to answer this in the negative.

   Unfortunately, you have presumed to speak for all of Christianity on the
topic of evolution.  There are problems with this, the most notable being 
that 1) Such talk is the result of unseemly pride for you are in no position
to speak for the multitudes, 2) Your position smacks of disrepect towards your
fellow believers, and 3) Lastly you have yet to demonstrate that you have any
understanding of the topic upon which you have chosen to preach.

> Second, most evolutionists refuse to even admit there are
> massive flaws in the evolutionary theory.  Instead they "Preach" it as fact.
> Why do you think that is?

   Most people who work in the field of evolution, spend great amounts of time
working on the modest sniggling flaws that remain in the theory.  This process
of working on flaws in theories about the natural world is known as science.
Second, while there are unknowns and holes within evolutionary theory, this in
no way, shape, or form, reflects on the fact of evolution.  In analogy, we
now know that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is not correct, but this
does not mean that gravity no longer exists.

   Two questions:

1) Just for the record, what in your learned experience are these "massive
   flaws" you allude to above?

2) Why doesn't word of these "massive flaws" leak out to the populace in
   general?  (If you plan to claim there is a Satanic conspiracy of scientists,
   would you also include a brief report on the role of the Templars in this
   conspiracy?*)

> I apologize for the book I just wrote.

   Would you also be as kind to some of your fellow Christians, to whom you
have provided great umbrage, by retracting the offensive statements you have
made above?

> I would like the opinion of an Evolutionist or Two.

   Well, I have focussed on the form of your argument, and on the content
of only a small (but IMHO important) part.  Others will probably point out
that you haven't the knowledge to provide useful insight on the scientific
topic you are choosing to visit.

> Rick Rearden.

> P.S.  I was discussing the topic with a fellow Marine and he said that in a
>       labrotory, protein( or maybe amino acids) were created in an experiment
>       by duplicating the supposed situation that life was first spaned from
>       nothingness.  If anybody has some info or references, I would greatly
>       appreciate it. Thankx.

   Rick, this last request demonstrates that you haven't the merest wisp of
a clue as to what you are talking about.  Seriously, how can any rational
human being write a tome on evolution/abiogenesis, and be unaware of the
Urrey-Miller experiments?  (As an aside, you DO know what abiogensis is,
don't you?)

   Since you probably don't understand the extent to which this demonstrates
ignorance, let me give you an analogy--Pretend I were to post an article
all about Christianity.  If at the end of my article I were to write...

"P.S. I was discussing the topic with a friend, and he said that one of
      their sacraments involved eating human flesh and drinking human blood.
      If anybody has some info or references, I would greatly appreciate
      it.  Thanks"

wouldn't you feel that any opinion/thought I had about Christianity wasn't
worth spit?  Welcome to the club.

--
Matt Brinkman		brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov

Obligatory Quote:      "Nothing is here treated but the visible form
			of the world.  He who would learn astronomy and
			other complex arts, let him go elsewhere."

					--John Calvin on Genesis 1