I think your points are still good ones, Stephen; I think they're just =
way overstated, something of a caricature. Your naive view of faith is =
at a level similar to a -naive- fundmentalist's view of science. ("Ya =
start by rejecting God, then go downhill from there....")
One quick question: by faith do you mean beliefs that are religious in =
nature? Or beliefs that are not strictly determined by the evidence =
(e.g., perhaps not held in proportion to the independently empirically =
confirming evidence)? Or what?
More later, if you want, and as we have time. (My company is living =
during exciting times right now.... :^> )
----------
From: Stephen Gooch[SMTP:sgooch@sm10.sciatl.com]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 1996 7:10 AM
To: Dennis L. Durst
Cc: evolution@Calvin.edu
Subject: observation vs. faith
Dennis,
Based on your reply I don't think you are understanding the basic point =
I am
making.
I am not arguing about "the innumerable transitional forms"*, or am I =
arguing
about observing macro evolution or about the beginnings of the cosmos =
(as a
reply that was not mail to the rest of the list suggested).
This is about where the theory of evolution and creation mythologies =
started.
The theory of evolution started from these and other observations:
1. Rudimentary organs
2. Rudimentary characters
3. The Bodily Structure of humans shares the same general structure as =
other
mammals
4. Humans can get diseases from other animals
5. Human embryonic development is not that much different that other =
higher
vertebrate.
6. Variability in humans.
7. Those with the best traits for adapting to their environment or more =
likely
to have offspring.
8. Comparison of basic mental traits with other animals, like the =
ability to
learn.
9 . . .
Christian creation mythology started (correct me if I am wrong) with God
telling Moses how it happened.
This is why I wrote the evolution is exposed to, and can be changed by =
the
observations of others, thus you don't have to agree that the above
observations suggest that all mammals have a common origin. This is =
what makes
it a theory.
There are no observations to disagree with on how God told Moses. One =
reads
the book, prays, and then thinks about things like how else would all of =
the
universe get created if it was not for a God. -> "A watch does not come
together on its own, some one has to put it together." That is how =
faith
develops.
The two are at the very lowest levels different.
---*transitional forms are not the basis of mammal evolution theory, they =onlysupport the basic observations. Whether or not evidence of transitional =formsis now a complete support of mammal evolution is another argument all =together.
---On Sep 5, 1:13pm, Dennis L. Durst wrote:> Subject: Re: theory vs. law> Dear Stephen,>> Let's see...the innumerable transitional forms predicted by> Darwin have for the most part not been found. Therefore the =evolutionist> BY FAITH believes that either a) they once existed but have been =destroyed;> or b) they can be explained by rapid speciation events (puntuated> equilibrium) by an as-yet-unkown mechanism or c) they exist and will> be found in the future. It is the FAITH of the evolutionist in the> theory that compels him/her to embrace a, b, or c above, NOT the> current state of the empirical record. Or do you have another> alternative?>> Dennis Durst>-- End of excerpt from Dennis L. Durst
--=20-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-==3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D--=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-==3D-=3D-| Stephen Gooch | stephen.gooch@asu.edu = || 770.903.6778 | =http://goodnet.com/~ej23298 |-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-==3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D--=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-==3D-=3D-#!/bin/shecho ='16i[q]sa[ln0=3Daln100%Pln100/snlbx]sbA0D3F204445524F42snlbxq'|dc;exit