From: dk@imager (Dave Knapp)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 26 Dec 92 08:24:23 GMT
Organization: Laboratory for Experimental Astrophysics

In Article <33052.2B3ADE47@puddle.fidonet.org>
Edward.Dunagin@f540.n226.z1.fidonet.org (Edward Dunagin) writes:

   I think we agree, Edward; I found most of what you wrote quite
reasonable.  However, I have a couple of minor points:

First, I tried very hard to precisely define what I mean when I
write "creationist."  It behooves you to do the same for the word
"evolutionist."

   You wrote:

> It seems to me, that for the Evolutionist to examine the fossil
> record and then "jump" to the conclusion that this all started
> (The Big Bang) as an accident, almost requires as much faith as
> faith in God!

   I hope you realize that nobody thinks that the fossil record
has anything to say about the Big Bang.  I also hope that you
don't think that accepting the evidence for the Big Bang implies
that the Universe is any sort of accident.  In fact, the theory
of evolution doesn't depend on a series of "accidents," either --
that is a straw man (see my original post) invented, as far as I
can tell, by creationists.

> How then can I ever hope to convince an unbeliever to have faith
> in God through scientific evidence? Never! I do not have that
> power.

   Precisely.  As I said in my first post, I am a Christian.  I
believe in God because God has given me the grace to do so, _not_
because the scientific evidence persuaded me.  On the other hand,
I believe that the Earth is very old, and in common descent,
because of the evidence all around us; I don't believe God is a
liar.

DK>    You see, here he manages to insinuate that those who reject a
DK>  young Earth do so not because they are honest scientists, but
DK>  because they don't want to believe in God.  This kind of argument
DK>  is insulting, false, and not scientific.

> But Scripture teaches that Mankind cannot believe in God through
> his own power. Man is blind to God! I agree with Bruce only to
> that point. I say that Man is blind and cannot come (believe or
> know) to God. Is that insulting, false, and not scientific? If you
> say "yea", then I'm sorry but that is not my intent.

  I honestly don't see what your response has to do with my
comment.  I was not saying that honest scientists do or don't
believe in God; I was pointing out that the _reason_ for
accepting evolution is not necessarily the rejection of God. 
(Perhaps I should be more clear here: in this paragraph, when I
wrote "evolution" I meant "common descent," which is really the
concept under attack from creationists.)

   -- Dave

[ small metacomment here: on UseNet it is frequently considered
impolite to parade one's credentials.  That is why I don't
mention mine.  Especially in a science forum, one's words should
stand or fall by themselves, without any appeal to authority.  On
the other hand, some idea about the experience of the writer is
helpful in assessing the value of his or her opinion...  I don't
know what the best course is in this regard.]
-- 
  *-------------------------------------------------------------*
  * David Knapp        dk@imager.llnl.gov       (510) 422-1023  *
  *            98.7% of all statistics are made up.             *
  *-------------------------------------------------------------*