Replies

Please excuse the interuption. Just wanted to add a thought. I have been reading these creation/evolution threads and even participated some for quite a while. I don’t think that much is being accomplished because of the belief systems concerning origins at the root of the discussions. For the evolutionist the answer has to be naturalism, hence his theory of abiogenesis, (non biological origins). (As Lewontin said, “…..we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”) This theory dates at least as far back as Aristotle and the defunct idea of spontaneous generation and has undergone revision until it now states that life rose from non-life via the evolutionary guiding principles of mutations adding genetic material, survival of the fittest, and natural selection. On the other hand those of us of the opposite persuasion subscribe to the teleological principles that anything that evinces design proves that there is a designer. This thinking has been in the mind of man for a very long time dating at least to the Biblical Psalms around 3000 years ago and restated by the Apostle Paul in the first letter to the Roman Christians nearly 2000 years ago. Anytime, and in any manner, that you attack the naturalistic theory of origins you automatically raise the spectre of creation. Consequently, given the political environment, the courts cannot allow any criticism of the ToE to be taught in the government schools. Fair or unfair, the fact is, that in the government schools, the evolutionist wins. For those that accept the naturalistic theory of abiogenesis I wonder how they account for the natural processes of evolution resulting in cultures all over the world concluding that there is a creator? Does this simply mean that evolution has a long way to go until we cast this terrible thought out of the collective brain? Or will we eventually evolve God?

Thanks for your post. A few things to add.

Whether logically consistent or inconsistent, most evolutionists seem to deny the theory as entailing abiogenesis. I'm not sure, why because if one is going to attribute everything to so-called "natural" causes, it hardly seems unnatural for matter to simply assemble itself somehow (if we even dare admit to the suggestion of an assembly, for that, too, implies design).

Second, it would be inaccurate to see the presence of organized matter as "proof" of intelligent design, or even "proof" of God's existence. The word "proof" carries too much certitude for human intellect on a scientific basis to allow its use for all but the most fundamental axioms. Science is happy to work with evidence and make reasonable assumptions based on the same. That's all either side should ask of the other.

Third, you are right in asserting that both sides go at the evidence with different starting assumptions. It seems both sides are unwilling to admit it, perhaps out of fear for compromising objectivity. Frankly there is absolutely no way for science to be completely objective because it is by definition a human undertaking. Naturalistic underpinnings will lead the observer to naturalistic conclusions, and reasonably so.

Finally, as far as public school policy goes, the federal government has no business endorsing or establishing solely atheistic principles. It is in principle atheistic to state that science can only be done to the exclusion of theistic underpinnings. Notice I did not say "theistic hypotheses" or "theistic experimentation" or "scientific attempts to prove the existence of God." Besides, it is entirely alien to science to allow its parameters to be framed by government fiat. If the public cannot handle generic references to a higher intelligence as a scientifically viable explanation for organized matter on a massive scale, then the public does not deserve or need government funded education.