From: "Chris Ho-Stuart"



Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian





Subject: Re: faith (was creationism)





== Others wrote:



> >> > > >>The Australian Academy of Science's "Statement on Creationism"

....

> >> > I would be of the opinion that most, if not all of those in the

> >> >Australian Academy of Science, are Evolutionists.

> >> This begs the question 'Why do you think they became Evolutionists in

the

> >> first place ... science or faith?'

> >

> > By indoctrination - every person born from 1950 on in NSW

> > has been taught that Evolution happened and from 1977 the

> > media has promoted it. The teaching, most likely now ( I

> > can't speak from personal experience) is given at pre-school

> > centres when children are taught about dinosaurs.

>

= Chris responded: People are taught that evolution happened (and happens)

for the same

> reason that people are taught that continental drift happened (and

> happens). And the reasons, in both cases, are:

>

> (1) It is directly observed in the present, occuring at rates which

>     are consistent with the inferred cummulative changes.

>

> (2) The signs of it having occurred in the past are many and unambiguous.

>

> (3) There is no evidence at all that has even not been happening.

>

==  Creationism is not science and has no place in science education.

> >

> > Science, as facts that have been proved in the laboratory or

> > in the field cannot prove that an Almighty God created the

> > Universe in the beginning - that is so. But scientists CAN

> > PROVE that cellular organisms COULD NOT increase in genetic

> > complexity into the higher forms of life.

>

=  This is unabiguously and completely false.

>

== The opposite is true according to Paul Davies and

> >> Stephen Hawking ... an intelligent creator is not required at all!

> >

> > That is their opinion. They could be wrong. They have been

> > promoted by the evolutionists in the media.  Scientific

> > Creationists who have made advances in scientific areas

> > are not designated for their faith position so it might be

> > assumed that they. too, are evolutionists.

>

= I am not aware of any scientific advances at all made by so called

> scientific creationists, working as creationists. None.

>

= This continual nonsense about stuff being "promoted" is mere

> avoidance of the actual evidence and study which is the real

> reason scientific models get overwhelming and effectively

> unanimous agreement.

>

==  p.1 A fundamnentalist is an evangelical who is angry about something.

> >

> > It seems that many believe they have a "right to fight" for

> > what they believe - so why not others. You seem to support

> > "secular humanism", but as they have promoted certain

> > programmes problems have increased in our society.

> >

> > ... the larger issue was the truth of the Bible.

> >>

> >> then on what did protestantism, the religion of scriptura  sola, rest?

> >

> > I assume you are referring to Martin Luther here. His

> > work developed out of that of Wycliffe in England with both

> > opposing certain teachings of the Roman Catholic denomination

> > (transubstantiation, indulgences, relics to avoid punishment

> > in purgatory). Martin Luther, from his Biblical studies,

> > taught that is was by faith alone in Jesus Christ that we

> > have Eternal Life.  However, the teaching is also that faith

> > without works is dead.

> >

> > And what if there were scientific and historical errors

> > in Scripture?  Flat earth? (not in the Bible although the

> > language of appearance (sun rises in the east etc) is still

> > used today even though our society likes to think it is

> > scientifically literate. The Bible (book of Job) says that

> > God hangs the world on nothing whereas other cultures, at

> > that time, taught that it rested on the shoulders of Atlas,

> > an ox, an elephant, a large fish.



=  None of these cultures were proposing models remotely comparable

> to scientific models. They are is chalk and cheese; and to

> say science "disproves" any of these models, or even to bother

> making a comparison, is to miss the point.

>

> The bible also says that Joshua commanded the Sun to stand

> still; Martin Luther is famous for using this passage to prove

> that Copernicus was wrong, and that the Earth is fixed with

> the Sun in motion around it, rather than the other way around.

>

==  Scientific Creeationists say that there is evidence

> > that the world is younger that the age given by Evolutionists.

>

= And, in every case, they are wrong. Consistently.

>

== For example...

> > (Civilisation is dated from about 5 000 years ago, populations

>

=  NO-ONE dates civiliation from about 5 000 years ago; it is

> significantly older than that.

>

==  would support that, lack of skeletons for 60 000 years of human

> > existence,

>

= This is false. We have skeletons over the whole range of the last

> 60 000 years, and more.

>

==  some fossils, coal deposits & sedimeantary rocks support a

> > world-wide flood,

>

= None of them support a wolrd wide flood... in fact, they

> conclusively contradict it. Coal, for example; there is too

> much of it to come from biomass within a single century, and

> it is layered interspersed with other depositions demonstrating

> that coal deposits do not result from a single event.

>

== Micro-macro evolution could not happen.  Mutations, generally,

> > lead to loss of genes.

>

= This is false also. Mutations can introduce new genes, and

> modify existing genes.

>

== I am aware that I have deleted quite an amount of what

> > you wrote. I am not a walking encyclopedia on these

> > issues. However, from the published materials I have my

> > assessment is that the Scientists Creationists give a better

> > explanation that do the Evolutionists.

>

=  With all due respect, you do not have the knowledge that would

> allow you to make this evaluation.

>

> Why don't you pick just one issue, and lets actually make a

> serious side by side assessment of creationist and evolutionist

> perspectives on the matter?

>

> Cheers -- Chris



~~~



=

And Ken Smith added:



Gladys, have you actually talked to someone involved in developing new

varieties of crops?

I could mention animals, but crops are more familiar to most people.

Try getting hold of an ecnyclopedia and looking up the word "wheat"

and see how much information it contains.

Our modern wheats are derived from primitive wheats, and the process

involves polyploidy - multiplication of the number of chromosomes -

followed by selection of the variants which prove better adapted to

the area in which they are to be grown.



The genetic complexity of modern wheats, by any measure, is greater

than that of the original.



I think you should take an introductory course in biology, together

with the corresponding field trips and laboratory work.



I took a first year botany course at Sydney University in 1950.

One example the lecturer gave us involved some Russian work in the

1920s.  They tried cross-breeding radishes and cabbages, which had the

same number of chromosomes.  The hope was that they would get a plant

with a cabbage top and a radish root, thereby saving on the amount

needing to be planted.  After managing chromosome duplication using

one of the standard chemicals for this (colchicine comes to mind, but

I may be wrong on this) they got a new variety of plants which

couldn't cross-breed with either of the ancestral lines.

Unfortunately these plants had a root much like that of a cabbage, and

a top much like that of a radish, so weren't much use as a food crop.

But they were certainly more complex genetically than the parents.



Salaam

Ken Smith



Chris again:



==  I would be of the opinion that most, if not all of those in the

Australian

> Academy of Science, are Evolutionists and would not want any other opinion

> given to children in the school system and through the media to the

general

> population. With the use of public moneys in the Universities, the payment

> of teachers' salaries and public financing of the many media outlets they

> have many more dollars for the promotion of their ideas.



= The matter is not one of dollars, but of facts and evidence. Really.

THAT is why scientists tend to be evolutionists -- whether they be

Christians or Jews or agnostics or undeclared.



== the notorious "The Quote Book"

>

> There have been two versions of this book. In the second edition there is

> an explanation given for the withdrawal of the first.

> All humans are capable of mistakes - even Evolutionists have had their

share

> of them with some very notable hoaxes through the years.



= "Some" notable hoaxes?



The famous hoax is the Piltdown hoax, perpetrated about eighty years

ago and uncovered about fifty years ago.



Can you name any others?



== what any scientist said about evolution (or any of the other parts of

>> science that they have attacked)

>

> I only have to go through a search on Creation Science or similar

> search topics to find how Evolutionists attack the Creation point of view.

>

> That way does not serve either side of the debate. In August, 1985, and

since

> in various ways I have asked that both sides of this issue be put to

parents

> and school children, as well as significant others in their lives.

> There are accredited scientists who say that EVOUTION COULD NOT HAPPEN -

> change within a species within certain environmental conditions -

> but bird stay birds (Galapogos finches) etc.......



= This is nonsense. Of course birds stay birds: if you think evolutionists

expect anything else to be observed then you just do not understand the

evolutionary model.



= What we *do* observe is rates of divergence and speciation which fit

perfectly well with existing diversity to arise over the available

periods of time. The Galapoagos finches are an example of this.



= It does not matter that a scientists is "accredited". That makes no

difference... what counts is the evidence and arguments they can muster.

And all the arguments that evolution could not happen which I have

seen are, without exception, arrant nonsense.



== THERE HAD TO BE AN INTELLENT CREATOR TO SET IT ALL IN MOTION.



= Perhaps. This is a statement of faith... one shared by many

evolutionists. It is not something which can be supported or

refuted by empirical data.



Cheers -- Chris



~~~



== Gladys and = Ken again:



== I would be of the opinion that most, if not all of those in the

Australian

>Academy of Science, are Evolutionists and would not want any other opinion

>given to children in the school system and through the media to the general

>population. With the use of public moneys in the Universities, the payment

>of teachers' salaries and public financing of the many media outlets they

>have many more dollars for the promotion of their ideas.



I= t may be your opinion, Gladys.

Scientists generally aren't inclined to take action against anyone who

slanders them in this way.

I count three Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science among my

close friends - two are respected for their research in chemistry and

one in geology.

I don't know any biologists in teh Academy, so I can't say whether

they would be classified as "evolutionists" or not, but I suspect they

would.

It seems that yoiu are using teh word "evolutionist" in some sense

which is not the same as that used in science, Gladys.



~~~



== Gladys Swager wrote:

[snip]

> It was not my intention to slander any one. When I know that Evolution was

> taught in NSW Secondary schools from 1962, but it was only presented in

the

> media from 1977, I believe, I have a right to question why that was so.



= These dates are kind of wierd. Only presented in the media since 1977?

Come on!



As for being taught in secondary schools since 1962 -- I'd

be surprised. It was being taught in the USA at least prior

to 1924; and I do not believe Australia is so backward that

such a foundational scientific theory was omitted prior to 1962.



== I count three Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science among my

>> close friends - two are respected for their research in chemistry and

>> one in geology.

>

> I have no doubt that there are those who are evolutionists who have done

> important scientific research. But there are also Creationists who have

> contributed to the advancement of Science.



= Could you give an example please?



I am aware of cases of creationists who have done some significant

scientific work, but in every case -- EVERY since case without any

exception -- any advancement has been from their normal scientific

contributions, and have nothing whatsoever to do with creationism.



[snip]

== There are accredited scientists who say that EVOUTION COULD NOT HAPPEN -

>> >change within a species within certain environmental conditions -

>> >but bird stay birds (Galapogos finches) etc.......

>

> The genes are not there for upward mobility into other forms of life.



= And evolution does not propose that there are genes for upward

mobility.



= Evolution proposes that genomes change over time; and this is amply

confirmed.



== You have queried my insistence on two topics - the origin

> of life and the age of the universe. THEY ARE THE TWO

> ASPECTS THAT ARE MOST OFTEN PRESENTED TO CHILDREN. Is it

> that even Evolutionists, who say that everything came about

> by chance without an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, are determined

> to indoctrinate those two ideas in children, with the only

> proof implied or stated, 'Science has proved it to be so.'



= This word "indoctrinate" is inappropriate, unless you would

say we also indoctrinate students with maths and physics and

chemistry and so on.



A good education will explain the actual basis for scientific

models, including evolution.



== My contention is still :-

> THERE HAD TO BE AN INTELLENT CREATOR TO SET IT ALL IN MOTION -

> THE ALMIGHTY GOD OF THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN FAITH.



= Fine... this is a statement of faith, shared also by many who

accept biological evolution as one of the many natural processes

in a created world. Where you run into trouble is in setting up

natural processes as a conflict with God's activity.



Cheers -- Chris



~~~



== Gladys and = Ken (who typed this in a hurry) again



== Not everyone in science and/or education agrees with the above.



= I can't speak for people in education, but they are, in general, not

comp[etent to decide what counts as science and what is not science.

But within the scientific community - and here I am including people

actively engaged in research in science, which automatically rules out

virtually all craetionists who are not involved in research but only

delve through what scientists have written to find some scrap of

information which, when taken out of context, seems to support their

views.



= At least in Queensland creationism is not in teh science syllabus, but

it *is* mentioned in teh Studies in Religion syllabus (or, to be

correct, it was a couple of years ago when I last looked).

And that is the proper place for any religious ideas.



== My resolution is:-1. All mention of micro-macro (gradually evolving

>forms of life from simple celled to very complex humans ), and

>billions of years

>evolution to be taken out of school science syllabuses.

>Debate on these issues be part of Tertiary level studies and be given

>by

>the proponents of the various points of view.



= Why should school students be denied access to one of the basic and

fruitful concepts of modern science?



==                  2. Information by the various groups of scientists

>investigating Origins of life & the age of the Universe be given

>through

>media programmes so that parents and significant others in children's

>lives

>have an opportunity to think through the issues. At present there is

>an intense

>indoctrination by Evolutionists that their views are the only correct

>ones.



= Why do you pick on just two topics - the origin of life and the age of

the universe?

How many people are even aware of the chain of links involved in

establishing the distance scale - and the derived age - for the

universe?

Starting with the same techniques used by surveyors to produce maps -

or do you also want to ban any discussion of geometry in schools,

since this is one of the fundamental techniques used?



= Sorry, Gladys, but there isn't any indoctrination - just the

presentation of the almost universally accepted results of scientific

research.



= The media generally makes a mess of these issues.

To take only one recent topic, there was a lot of mis-information

going around a few weeks ago about the speed of light having changed.

But delving into the actual papers, it emerged that it was all based

on just one paper which took fro granted claims that there had been

variations in the fine-structure constant, and used the thermodynamics

of black holes to suggest that the most likely cause was a change in

the speed of light.



= Now if you think that the media is capable of explainiung to people

*anything* about thermodynamics, let alone thermodynamics of black

holes, you have a very rosy view of the media.



= And delving further into the evidence, it turned out that this was

from a paper over a year old, which used three different techniques to

measure the fine-structure constant, using abrorbtion of light from

quasars.



= Two of the techniques showed no change, and the other one showed a

peculiar behaviour - the same value as at present 10,000 million years

ago, then a small drop follwed by a return to the present value about

6,000 million years ago.



= Because of this peculiar behaviour obtained by just one technique

most scientists are withholding judgment on any variation in the fine

structure constant.



= And this is just one example of how the media can make an unholy mess

of trying to cover some up-to-date scientific publication.