>It's not a question of liking or preferring a name. It's a question of the
>*reality* that the words in the name signify.
>
>The word "evolution" (as it is used in science today) asserts or implies that
>the processes of biological origins and development were *undirected*,
>*purposeless*, natural processes. Thus the original 1995 official Position
>Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers
>stated what "evolution" really means in the scientific literature today:
>
>"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised,
>impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with
>genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance,
>historical
>contingencies and changing environments." (National Association of
>Biology Teachers, 1995 Statement on Teaching Evolution, in Johnson
>P.E., "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," 1997, p15).
>
>To say that an essentially "unsupervised...natural process" is "theistic" is
>a contradiction in terms. If God created mediately then the right term to
>use is Mediate Creation.
as you know, but fail to mention, the above statement was altered by the
Association and the words "unspervised . . . natural process" were deleted.
And rightly so. If some mythological figure is supervising and directing
evolution, he/she/it is doing it in such a way that it is undetectable and
unmeasurable. To say that such a figure is *not* doing it is ridiculous
and also unsupportable. There is no scientific evidence for or against the
interference by Kali, Zeus, or whoever in the natural process of evolution
and therefore outside the realm of science.
Susan
Susan
-----------
Life is short, but it's also very wide.
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/