From: phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.religion
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:08:08 +1000
Organization: Monash University - Melbourne. Australia.

In article <1992Sep3.054132.9273@bain3.bain.oz.au>, bill@bain3.bain.oz.au (Bill Richardson) writes:
> 
> Don
> 
> your emphasis is noted. As I emphasised, I posted a small section
> of that book, and to get the full picture of what he is saying, you
> have to read the book.  I cannot add any further to that.

Fair enough, but then it shouldn't be posted in isolation.  By itself,
this line of argument isn't sufficient "proof" of design.  By the same
token, it isn't "proof" of chance either.  Therefore it proves neither
but can be explained by both.

> As to the relevance of my last paragraph, I can only say that it is
> a statement of the unlikelyhood of our planet as it stands being the
> result of coincidence.  You could argue till the cows come home that
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I hope not.  My living room is a mess already ;-)

> the probability of evolution bringing us to where we are today is a
> finite number - all I am saying is that from what I have gleaned, it
> is *exceptionally* unlikely.

I think you are missing my point.  What I am saying is that just
because it is exceptionally unlikely, this does not necessarily
imply someone did it.  You can _believe_ this if you wish (and it
_could_ result in what we see) but (as I explained) it can be
explained naturally.  To look at it another way, if our existence
was an ordinary occurrance, does this imply less "proof" of a God?
Of course not.

> My feeling is that God is reliable. I have personal evidence that
> this is so.  If he says then that he created the world in seven
> days, hey who am I to argue?  And if I'm not going to argue with him,
> why would I argue with you? However I'm always willing to learn.

I don't disagree with anybody's right to believe what they want.
I just wanted to point out that these "arguments" in favour of
divine creation are not sufficient, and can be explained in other
ways which are just as valid.

> The ability to make art has been cited as evidence of a soul, and
> this evidence has only been around for tens of thousands of years.

But couldn't the creation and appreciation of art simply be the
ability of a complex mind (through a myriad of electro-chemical
reactions) to do something?  I don't see it as any evidence of a soul.

> Is a soul a possible product of evolution? 

This is obviously a very grey area of discussion.  You must first
assume we have one.  Now don't get me wrong, I personally believe
that there is more to a person than the physical processes - some
"eternal" essence.  However, I believe this on personal reflection
only and accept it as simply that (and the fact that we still don't
know everything).

I guess what I will always object to (in the nicest possible way, of
course), is the use of certain arguments given as "proof" (for one
side or the other).  Evolution cannot be _proved_ as such; it can
only be shown to as true as the evidence allows (the arguments are
pretty strong though)

> This is not intended as a flame, just a reflection of my strongly
> held beliefs.

Ditto

> Regards
> 
> -- 
> **\ Bill Richardson                      Mail: bill@bain3.bain.oz.au       //\\
> **/ A/P DBBGS, Bain & Co Sydney, Aust.   Ph: +61 2 258 1512 (fax 258-1000)   //
> **\  When I awoke the dire wolf six hundred pounds of sin...                ||
> **/        Billions of blue blistering barnacles@#$*&!                      **

-- 
Don Lowe, Department of Physics, Monash University, 
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3168.
" If builders made buildings, the same way that programmers wrote programs,
  the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilisation. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: aus.religion