Re: Evolution and Creationism

[David Abineri <dabineri@CHOICE.NET>]

William Beaty responded to my comments below.

I must admit that I am still confused. He is saying that because little
research has been done towards answering his questions about
creationism, this demonstrates that it is in fact a viable theory that
should be taught in our science classrooms.

And yet, in the same breath he says "Without evidence it is obvious that
we can make no judgement". If this is true, where does this theory of
creationism come from?


=======================================
By conducting genuine serious scientific research into that series of
questions, the reality of religious claims may be explored.  The results
of such a scientific investigation may lead to evidence of "Divine
creation"  or it may not.  Does the "invisible world" of religions
actually exist? If this can be demonstrated, it would change the face of
modern science.  But does it lead to creationism?  I cannot say.  First
devote decades of research and large amounts of funding to looking into
the subject, THEN we could give an answer.

> Personally, I need to be convinced by some evidence, discussion and
> careful interpretation of data.

As do I.   I do not believe that god created mankind or earth or the
universe.  However (and this is the key to true skepticism), I do not
disbelieve it either.   Instead I see that science has refused to
investigate this aspect of the world, and therefor I must withold
judgement.

> I do not understand how a series of
> unanswered questions can lead to any specific theory.

Obviously they cannot.  Without evidence it is obvious that we can make
no judgement.  There is no strong evidence in support of the existence
of that "invisible world," or any of the other phenomena which religions
claim are genuine.

But why is this?  In my opinion it is because the claims of religions
are not taken seriously by science, and therefor the evidence has not
been pursued.  Therefore any positive evidence remains anecdotal.  But
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Absence of evidence
could also be evidence of an intentional policy of refusing to GATHER
any evidence.  In my opinion the latter is the true situation.

The answer to the "creationism" question lies through a door which
science refuses to open.

On the other hand, the answer to the "evolution" question lies through a
door through which science has intentionally passed centuries ago.


Does evolution defeat creation?   No, but only because it's not a fair
fight.
================================================


--
        David Abineri     dabineri@choice.net