From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creation vs. evolution
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:09:37
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: Richard.Rearden.@.914/901@f8.n10.z1.fidonet.org's message of 06 Nov 92  03:50:00

In article <n0e24t@ofa123.fidonet.org> Richard.Rearden.@.914/901@f8.n10.z1.fidonet.org writes:

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

Absolutely untrue.  Evolution says nothing one way or another about
whether there is a god.  I happen to be an atheist and an evolutionist,
but it is possible to hold one position without holding the other (well,
it's tough to be an atheist and a creationist, but it's possible in
principle to hypothesize a directed panspermia, or if "god" is taken to
mean any intelligent force currently inaccessible to us, other
possibilities arise).

An analogy might be the chess program that has been discussed lately.
Despite the fact that the programmer has not personally tweaked all of
the parameters, she set up the system that permitted them to be tweaked
(subject to a random number generator; the fact that the random numbers
are actually pseudorandom is irrelevant).  This would be a "deist"
position: that she started the system and left it running.  A "theist"
chess program would be if the programmer personally tweaked some or all
of the parameters.  You'll notice that whether or not there is a "god"
in this situation, the results are the same: the chess program evolves
to favor the winning programs.

   The irony is that most Evolutionist, refuse to even take the Creationist 's
   theory into spectulation.  Nor even the average heathen.  And here is why.
   If Creation is true,  then there would have to be a God.  If there is a God,
   we would be obligated to follow his rules.  Most people, don't even want to
   consider that.  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?

(in no particular order)

1) Creation (I'm not referring to the biblical creation story, but to
the concept in general) could be true, there could even be a god, and we
could ignore it to our heart's content.  Maybe it really doesn't care
what we think about it or what we do.  The concept of a god that gives
us orders that we follow or go to hell is entirely biblical in nature;
many other cultures have had completely different concepts of deity.

2) The creation theory was first rejected by people who had originally
been creationists themselves.  I'm referring to Buckland, Sedgwick,
Agassiz, and such.  In fact, Sedgwick himself publicly recanted his
creation theory before the Royal Academy of Sciences in London (or some
such body; the reference is from Philip E. Kitcher's book whose title I
don't remember off the top of my head).  Evolution (Darwin's book) only
came later (years after the biblical creation story was quite thoroughly
refuted).  There has been no new evidence presented to support creation
ever since then, and hence no more reason to take it seriously than
there was when Sedgwick recanted.

3) You give us the flaws first, then we'll discuss it.  Don't be too
surprised if we've heard all of them before and have long since refuted
them.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net