From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Drew is a pretty good guy, folks.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:31:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.153745.9579@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> A theory of creation?  How about:  The world was created by God.

   That's not a theory, it's a bald assertion.  For it to be a theory (in the
sense of science) it ought to have evidence, it ought to explain specific
things, make predictions, etc.  If it were this simple, Jim Loucks wouldn't 
have thrown up his hands and walked away.
 
> You call me a creationist.  In the normal net usage, I don't think that
> is accurate.  I believe in the creation of the world by God.  I do not
> try to present "creation science" as a valid endevor.  To me it feels
> (NOTE: opinion) like a kludge created by those who need numbers to
> support their faith.

   Bravo for you!  It would bother me a whole lot if my faith was at odds with
reams of evidence but if it doesn't bother you, you are head an shoulders above
the average creationist.  I might think your view irrational but it is
refreshingly honest.

>>(By the way, the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how
>>life got here -- only how it evolved once it began to exist).
> 
> In its most common usage, it starts from a presumption of very simple
> life forms (single celled, no-nucleus, etc.)  It is used to explain all
> current life forms.  This is pretty close to a common usage definition
> of where life came from.

   Yeah, but we use science here.  I think the step from nonliving to living is
a huge one.  In some sense larger than the step from living goo to people.  It
is certianly less well understood by science.

>>There is simply too much corroborating evidence to suggest that the
>>earth is old and that common descent explains our origins.  The
>>only evidence that contradicts these facts comes from the first
>>few pages of a religious book.  Therefore, as far as scientists
>>are concerned, it doesn't count.  But if you think there is
>>scientific evidence that supports your claims, prove me wrong
>>and post it.  That would be much more constructive than just
>>saying "I'm right and you're wrong," now, wouldn't it?
> 
> You'll notice, if you re-read, that the post to which you responded did
> not say, "I'm right, and you're wrong."  It said, "Since you ask, this
> is what I believe."

   I, as a third party, conceede the point.  I will probably never understand
why you hold this belief but I'm so cheered by your firm decleration that your
not trying to misappropriate science that I can't bring myself to pick on you.
I would be utterly satisfied to have people allow science to work unhindered by
religion and vice versa.  (Flame retardant:  I don't mean I want science
divorced from ethics or anything; I just would like to see the ill forged and
pointless attempts at crossover stilled.)

> I know that biblical content is not admissable in a scientific
> context.  I have said so repeatedly.  What disturbs me is the trend to
> use the presence of {fossils, isochron dates, sediment layers, etc.} as
> EVIDENCE for the non-existence of God.  While it may lead an individual
> to loose faith, it is not proof of that matter.

   I reiterate: an honest scientist CANNOT take these as evidence either way.

> Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
"He allus said, 'Don't take life too serious.  It ain't nowhow permanent'"
-Walt Kelly
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15931 talk.origins:10872