From: "Chris Ho-Stuart"

Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: faith (was creationism)





> Gladys Swager

wrote (==)

> > Chris, Thank you for your answer. I am working from Ozemail

> > through Google.  I am on an upward learning curve as this is

> > my first Chat-room experience.  As I became more familiar

> > with its format,I will admit that, I was disappointed with

> > some contributions. There are basic issues that should

> > be discussed.

>

Chris responded (=) You are welcome here, and I appreciate your combination

of

> courtesy and robust disagreement.

>

> This is not really a chat-room. It is a newsgroup. The

> difference is that in a chat room responses are immediate,

> like a conversation; but in a newsgroup it is more like an

> exchange of public letters in an open forum. A minor point.

>

== I was one of the first Trainee-Teachers of the post-war

> > years. I gained my Teachers' Certificate with high grades -

> > was advised to enrol in an Economics  University course, but

> > chose to concentrate on teaching. I was able to do a part-time

> > course for my Diploma of Teaching (Special Education)

> > commencing late 70's. As a retired Infants (Teaching)

> > Mistress I began a tutoring programme - later extended to

> > a Study Centre. My Science training was in Chemistry and

> > Physics at (for its time a Selcective - admission by Primary

> > Final Examination) at the only co-educational High school

> > in the Sydney Metropolitan area during the World War II

> > years. Yes, that all dates me.  Biology was a course in my

> > original teacher training. In those years no evolution beyond

> > playground comments such as, "Was your mother a monkey?"

> > "Which came first - the chicken or the egg?"

>

=I consider that a very serious omission for science

> training.  Such playground comments indicate no understanding

> of evolutionary models; and even people who cannot accept

> the model should still understand it to some extent in any

> reasonable scientific education.

>

> Because make no mistake; evolution is the foundation of modern

> biology; and a science education which omits it is failing to

> teach people about the state of modern biology.

>

> If people don't want to study science that is their choice.

> But a study of biology that omits evolution is like a study

> of chemistry that omits the table of elements.

>

== My first public comments were on a Talk Back Radio programme

> > in August 1985.  The information I had taught in schools -

> > because it was information given me - was that there were

> > attributes of living and non-living things. Livng things can

> > grow, they need food and air, they can move of their own

> > volition, they can procreate. Non-living things could not

> > do these things. From that I proposed that there had to be a

> > supernatural being (in the Christian faith God Almighty) who

> > created in the first instance. I was told that that reasoning

> > had been followed by Anslem, Archbishop of Canterbury -

> > from memory about 1150 - that needs checking.

>

= I suspect you have mixed up your proofs.

>

> St Anselm is famous for the "ontological proof" of God's

> existence.  Roughly speaking, he defines God as the being for

> which none greater is possible. Existence is greater than,

> or more perfect than, non-existence, therefore this perfect

> being has to exist. This was around 1070, I think.

>

> The argument you are following is more like the "teleological proof"

> of St Aquinas, about 200 hundred years later.

>

==In that Talk-Back-Radio programme I asked for discussions

> > between Evolutionists and, those whom later I found were

> > being termed, Creationists.

> >

> > At the public level through Talk Back Radio (with those

> > hosts I have heard being Evolutionists), in the media and in

> > school texts that discussion has not occurred for a variety

> > of reasons.

> >

> >> > There are Creationists involved in research. Go to their

> >> > website (sponsor at the top of this topic)

> >

> > Google now has sponsored links which is the reason you can't

> > access them working through another server.

>

= I know. If you want to cite a reference, it has to be included

> within your article. The Google links are not part of your

> article.  I remain interested to see any links or references

> you would be willing to give to back up your comments about

> creationist research.

>

= My claim is that creationists are almost never involved in

> >> making actual contributions and discoveries in science by

> >> research; and the tiny fraction who are only make contributions

> >> in areas unrelated to creationism.

> >

== From my reading of the work of Scientific Creationists who

> > publish in "Creation" there are three aspects of their work

> > (1) studies in Geology, Astronomy and other scientific

> > disciplines. (2) finding evidences whether those studies

> > match Biblical teachings (3) indicating where Evolutionary

> > teachings are incorrect.

>

= And yet you still do not give an actual example we could

> consider.

>

> No creationist, anywhere, has made any useful contribution to

> geology or astronomy; except in some very rare cases where a

> creationist actually works as a scientist and incidentally

> does some minor work unrelated to their creationism.

>

> The "evidence" from geology and astronomy which is proposed

> to make a match with literal models of Genesis are, without

> exception, grossly incompetent and laughable pseudo science

> which does not withstand any level of investigation. It would

> be impossible to overstate just how horribly bad this is.

>

> Similarly, the "criticisms" of evolution I have seen are flat

> out wrong, or misunderstand evolutionary theory.

>

> I remain happy to consider any actual examples you might offer.

> I could easily give instances of errors made by creationists;

> but that would not achieve much. I am making a much stronger

> claim, that ALL the work of creationists as creationists is

> incorrect and flawed, and can be seen to be such on a case by

> case basis. That is why it is a classic example of pseudoscience.

>

> > > Chris Ho Stuart wrote, "Evolution proposes that genomes"

> >> > (the complete genetic material of any cell) "changes

> >> > over time."

> >

== It is obvious that that can occur in a type, kind

> > (ie. cat family). It is being used in Animal Husbandry

> > and Horticulture, BUT THERE IS NO CHANGE TO A NEW TYPE OF

> > ANIMAL OR PLANT, as far as I know. Please give examples that

> > have been scientifically verified, if such has happened in

> > modern times.

>

= You have not defined the notion of "type" or "kind". The

> amount of evolution required for cats to diversify into,

> for example, jaguars and lions, is a lot of evolution, taking

> millions of years. And yet that only scratches the surface of

> what time is available.

>

> What we observe to "happen in modern times" is, of course, small

> amounts of change. Noone has given any basis for limiting that

> change to certain bounds; and the rates of change we observe in

> the present are more than enough to account for living diversity.

>

> To test if evolution is correct, we need first of all to actually

> understand what evolution entails. That is where good education

> comes in.

>

> What evolution requires is that living creatures change. It does

> not have to be by much; since evolution can have change continuing

> to occur for millions of years. If we observed in modern times a

> sudden change from one type to another clearly different type, that

> would REFUTE evolution and support a model of special creation in

> which living forms appear at a point in time, rather than develop

> gradually.

>

> The other thing evolution requires is evidence of cumulative change

> over long periods.

>

> We have both these lines of evidence, just fine.

>

> The work of the Grants, observing finches on the Galapagos

> islands over thirty years continuously, showed evolutionary

> change taking place. In fact, it showed rapid change... much

> more than what is required by the model to explain observed

> diversity. They also observed that change tends to be chaotic

> (in the formal mathematical sense) so that there is not a

> smooth gradual progression in one "direction", but a haphazard

> change in forms which goes one way and then the other.

>

> References:

> Some proposed secondary school projects relating to the Grants work.

>    <http://heg-school.aw.com/bc/companion/cmr2e/activity/GF/GF10.htm>

> A very readable and gripping account of this ground breaking research:

>    "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time."

>    by Weiner, Jonathan, 1994

> A URL about this book

>    <http://www.2think.org/tbotf.shtml>

>

> As to observation of long term cumulative change, a good example

> is the evolution of whales. Just a decade ago, creationists were

> citing this as an unbridgeable gap. However, fossil finds in

> Pakistan have since revealed a beautiful series of transitional

> forms, extending over some millions of years, tracing the

> gradual development of whales from terrestrial quadrupeds.

>

> See:

>    <http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/>

>

> There is more; scientists biology can also track evidence for

> changes over time in other ways than fossils.

>

> Speciation can occur quite rapidly by geological standards; but

> it will generally still take of the order of several hundred

> years; not something we observe in an instance. There are many

> example of new species forming in recent times.

>

> For example; there are several species of a genus of moths that

> are unique to Hawaii, and which feed on bananas. But bananas are

> not native to Hawaii; they were introduced about a thousand years

> ago by Polynesian settlers. The moth species evolved since that

> time.

>

> See some speciation notes by Glenn Morton.

>    <http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199712/0086.html>

>

> Just for interest, Glenn is an evangelical Christian, professional

> geologist, and ex-creationist. He ghost wrote for Josh McDowell on

> evolution back when he was a creationist. See his story at

>    <http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gstory.htm>

>

> The genetic basis for new genetic information is also well

> established. For example:

>    <http://matisse.ucsd.edu/itp-bioinfo/lenski.pdf>

>    <http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm>

>    <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html>

>

> See also: "29 evidences for macroevolution"

>    <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>

>

> >> Evolution proposes that change accumulates over time. For example;

> >> you speak of a cat "kind".

> >> The theory of evolution is that over time, cats will change.

> >> They will never change into dogs; rather there will, over

> >> millions of years, be more and more different kinds of cats,

> >> encompassing more and more diversity. Or, on the other hand,

> >> perhaps they might go extinct; this can occur as well.

> >> Hence it is simply a confusion to expect that cats should change

> >> into "another kind"; whatever that means. What happens is that

> >> the cat "kind" encompasses more diversity.

> >> For example; we have mammals right now, including dogs, cats,

> >> whales, seals, camels, monkeys, etc. But 150 million years ago,

> >> mammals were a much smaller a less diverse group. THAT is

> >> evolution.

> >

== Scientific Creationists are saying that IT HAS OCCURRED IN

> > A SHORTER TIME PERIOD.

>

= This is what is so weird. Creationists simultaneously say that

> evolution is impossible, and also that it happens much faster

> than evolutionsts believe it does.

>

> >> What we observe is the kinds of change in the present which fit

> >> with this kind of diversification. We see the traces of cumulative

> >> change in the past, showing -- for example -- the development of

> >> whales from terrestrial quadrupeds.

> >

== (What are the facts that an ancestor of the whales came from

> > the sea and later that changed animal went back to the sea?)

>

> Yes; about 400 million years ago the ancestors of quadrupeds

> lived in the sea, as ancient forms of fish. About 60 million

> years ago, the ancestors of whales lived on the land, and moved

> into the sea over the next 10 million years or so.

>

==Evolution, as I have leant that term, has been that

> > living organisms began their existence in 'a primordial

> > swamp' some say 'soup' from a chance combination of certain

> > chemicals. That was the meaning used in the 1962 NSW  Science

> > Syllabus. However, I can see how opinions can change over

> > time as more scientific studies are done.

>

> This is not an accurate description of evolution, at any stage

> of evolutionary theory.

>

> The very earliest origins of life are not known, and subject to

> much speculation. Evolution is the model that explains what

> happens AFTER that; the origins of life itself are not as yet

> a well integrated part of evolutionary theory.

>

> >> Why, then, when biology, astronomy, geology etc discovers details

> >> of this world do you continually present these discoveries as being

> >> in conflict with God?  You do not merely disagree with evolution. You

> >> actually state that evolution is a denial of God's involvement.

> >

== From what you have written here you would accept that God

> > began the creative process - even continues it. Your debate,

> > as is also that of Creation Scientists is HOW IT WAS DONE.

>

> I personally, as an individual, do not assign any roles to God

> at all. I am simply pointing out that evolutionary models do

> not disprove God; they only disprove one model of how it was

> done.

>

> >> (Scientific Creationists)..

> >> (1) none of them made any useful discoveries or substantive

> >>     contributions that are actually related to creationism.

> >> (2) That anyone anywhere has proven -- or even given any

> >>     evidence -- that evolutionary processes are incapable of

> >>     giving rise to the existing diversity of modern life.

> >

== From my own reading, I would be of the opinion that Theistic

> > Evolutionists - sometimes called Progressive Creationists

> > (I haven't investigated the latter's ideas, as yet) and

> > Scientific Creationists would agree with what you have

> > posted above that there can be and has been diversity within

> > a species.  ie. GOD CREATED - SOMETIME IN THE PAST. If that

> > is so, the main issue, now, in this topic is WHEN DID THAT

> > 'PAST' OCCUR?' Am I reading you correctly???  Must go, but

> > thank you as you have stimulated my thinking on these issues.

>

> There are a range of views by Christians, and term "theistic

> evolutionist" is not well defined. For my money, evolution is

> like maths in that it is a technical subject. Would we speak

> of a "theistic mathematician"? No, merely a mathematician who

> is a theist. Being a theist makes no difference to their

> mathematics. Likewise, Christians can be scientists and

> evolutionists, without being any different in the science

> itself.

>

> One view expressed by some Christian friends of mine in

> talk.origins, where these subjects are discussed, is that

> it is an error to think of creation as being IN THE PAST.

> They see God as involved throughout all of time and space,

> and all of nature; not as a distinct thing that can be

> separated out as one cause amongst others; but as the

> foundation and font of all causes.

>

> Cheers -- Chris

>

> > Gladys