From: "Ken Smith" Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: creationism





(Gladys Swager) writes:

>

>  (Ken Smith) wrote in message

news:<>...

>

> >> As Chris has pointed out repeatedly, science makes no claims about

> >> either the existence or the non-existence of any entities outside (or

> >> beyond) the natural world.

> >>

> >> Science at the Tertiary level is one thing. It is research into

> >many aspects of scientific knowledge.

>

> >At the school level I suggest that all mention of millions/billions

> >of years, and micro-to-macro-evolutionary change be left out, as there

> >is debate on those issues.



Ken replies:



> Now, now, Gladys, you're getting into areas in which I have some

> expertise.

> There is, among scientists, no debate about about the ages of the

> earth and the universe in the billions of years.

> Or about the ages of fossils ranging from well over 3 billion years

> down to recent ones measured in thousands of years.

>

> If you're anywhere near a good university library pay a visit and have

> a look at the book "The Age of the Earth" by G. Brent Dalrymple.

> Don't be put off by the size, and it's written in a way which can be

> appreciated by people with not much technical training but a

> willingness to learn.

> If you don't read anything else in it, read the Preface.

> He starts by mentioning that a number of his colleagues wanted to know

> why he was writing a book about something which everybody knew -

> namely 4,500 million years, give or take (at the very most) 50 million

> years.

>

> There is debate about the precise age of the universe, but only

> because measurements of the most distant - and hence faintest -

> galaxies are very difficult, and push observational techniques to

> their limit.

>

> But let me emphasise again - there is not the slightest doubt within

> the scientific community that creationist speeches about ages for the

> earth and the universe in the thousands, rather than billions, of

> years are nothing more than speeches to their untrained followers.

>

> If you want evidence of creationist double-speak on ages, saying

> "thousands" to the faithful, and "millions" or "billions" when writing

> for scientists who know something about the topic, I'll dig out a couple

> of examples of Australian creationists for you.



Gladys again:> >What is important for children is how science works in their

environments

> >and in today's world.

>

> >The circumstantial evidence could be that when Sputnik went up

> >in the late 1950's evolutionary scientists saw an opportunity

> >to impose their ideas on the school system so that there would

> >be more students going into Tertiary courses accepting

> >the Evolutionary point of view.

>

Ken:  I'm still not clear just what you mean by "the Evolutionary point

> of view."

> Could you say how this affects, for example, quantum mechanics which

> is used to design the chips in the computer on which you type your

> posts?

> Salaam

> Ken Smith