Replies

I don't want to offend anyone with using terminology that demeans or insults. I think all who post here should do likewise, and refrain from terms which are, by nature, inflammatory.

That being said, let me say that I am not a scientist. But I would reference what other scientists have said about this subject.

G.A. Kerkut, the eminent British evolutionist, wrote a book entitled, "The Implications of Evolution." He listed seven nonprovable assumptions upon which evolution is based. At the very top of his list (note: his list; not mine), was this statement: "the first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred." (1960, p.6)

These are assumptions that the evolutionist must make before he can hold to the theory of evolution. It is an assumption that has no basis in scientific fact. It cannot be proven scientifically. That means it is, equally, unscientific. That makes it, in my mind (a layman), almost as much a matter of faith as Creationism.

In fact, Nobel laureate Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, 21 years later wrote: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears, at the moment, to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

It appears to me, (again, a layman) that there is as much faith required for evolution as Creationism. It's dismissive to label Creationism as "myth." It's also inconsistent to examine Creationism under the microscope of absolute truth without subjecting evolution to the same criteria.

But, once again, let's stay focused. This is about a group of parents who are fighting to take back their schools, in their community, paid for with their tax dollars. In that endeavor, we must all be united.

I am surprised, however, that evolution vs. Creation generates this much controversy. One would think this to be as volatile an issue as gun control or immigration. Let us not become ungentlemanly in the quest for truth.

Now, I've got to get back to my Data Based Management Systems homework. By the way, can anybody explain "equiJOIN" for me?

I don't want to offend anyone with using terminology that demeans or insults. I think all who post here should do likewise, and refrain from terms which are, by nature, inflammatory.

Noble sentiment. If I came across as insulting you, then you have my apologies. Too much time on these threads tends to leave one rather jaded.

At the very top of his list (note: his list; not mine), was this statement: "the first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred." (1960, p.6)

This is commonly referenced as being crucial to the theory of evolution. However, while abiogenisis (the commonly used term for the process described in the quote) and the theory of evolution are related, they are independent. Aboigenisis is, in layman's terms, "How Life Came To Be," while the theory of evolution describes "What Happened Next." You other cite is similarly flawed in that it concerns the Origin of Life, not the Origin of Species.

there is as much faith required for evolution as Creationism.

Not true. Evolution is based on evidence. Critters evolve. This has been observed. Populations of like critters can speciate. This has also been observed (Google on "ring species"). The fossil record is replete with examples of gradual change, with the regular emergence of particular structures (VadeRetro's ear bone example, for one), and an orderly pattern of descent and divergence. New fossils are discovered daily and in almost all cases fit neatly into the pre-existing structure. Those that don't are accomodated with minimal fuss. This is evidence, not faith.

Creationism has no evidence, defines no structure of descent, and, in fact, compels that the appearance of an evolutionary lineage be denied.

This is about a group of parents who are fighting to take back their schools, in their community, paid for with their tax dollars. In that endeavor, we must all be united.

I live in Cobb County. Regardless of any other characteristics (good OR bad) they may share, fundamentalist Christians are notoriously poor science teachers.

In fact, Nobel laureate Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, 21 years later wrote: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears, at the moment, to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

As a layman, I have heard that it is hard to believe that all the millions of conditions needed to explain the existance of life as we know it (temperature, liquid water, oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere,...etc.) It seems to me that if any of these conditions were different, then things would not be as we know it. Life is as we know it BECAUSE these conditions were as they were.

Different initial conditions give different answers as time goes by.

L.P.

G.A. Kerkut, the eminent British evolutionist, wrote a book entitled, "The Implications of Evolution." He listed seven nonprovable assumptions upon which evolution is based. At the very top of his list (note: his list; not mine), was this statement: "the first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred." (1960, p.6)

He was wrong. Evolution does not rely on any specific life origin hypothesis. The original life forms could have been zap-poofed into existence by some divine entity and that would have no bearing on the validity of evolution.