levolution teaching

[Semjase]

>From: Neil at NWJONES.DEMON.CO.UK  (Neil Jones)
>Date: Thu, 19 August 1999 04:42 PM EDT
>Message-id: <14767 at nwjones.demon.co.uk>>



> The evidence is patent nonsense.
>
>The biblical account of creation IS NOT compatable with science. 
>ALL the so called scientific evidence has been demonstrated conclusively
>to be invalid or even fraudulent. Just because someone has initials
>after their name doesn't mean they should be believed.
>

>Creation Science is, as I have said before, a FRAUD. It is not science
>at all but Hebrew Mythology in mascarade. If you are to give a balanced
>view why not that of Norse Mythology or Greek Mythology or Egyptian
>or Sumerian Mythology?

Actually Mythology can be based on factual happenings.  I agree a broader view
as you suggest should be given.

 The only difference is that some people still
>believe that the primitive tribal stories of the ancient Hebrews are 
>literally true. There are a lot of people who believe this and you
>might even say that there is one born every minute. This does not
>make it good science. Science is based on a logical system of
>proof, mythologies are not.

One must remember there is a difference between mythology and religion.  No one
is expected to believe a myth.  A religious belief is on faith alone (usually).
 A scientific belief is by  proof based on observed fact.  

In both cases of religion and science there are belifs present and these may or
may not be factual in an ultimate sense.  
>
>If Creationism is a science. What discovered facts have caused the
>creed it promotes to change? Or if there aren't any what facts if
>they were discovered could cause it to change?
>
>If there any feature of creationism that is subject to scientific test?

Creationism regarding certain christian sects can only be a religion.  But have
we actually defined "Creationism" as pertains this discussion.
>
>Why do some christians belive in evolution?

Biblical account is rather diffuse on the creation of the world.  It says God
created the world but not how it was done.  It should be noted that creation
encloses the concept of time.  Therefore time was one of the things being
created. If this is so it may be impossible to find the exact point in time
when creation came into being as time itself was being created.  This may have
enormous implications regarding the structure of this system of reality.  Since
it appears that the present is the only place things seem to be formed it
appears that creation may occur in the ever present now.
It is an ongoing process that every component of creation participates in. 
Separating creation from God may well be impossible as well.  The true nature
of these things may well be beyond present human abilities to understand
>
>(If I recall correctly Charles Darwin himself had a degree in Theology.)
>0
>
>If creationism is correct. Biological theory is wrong. Cosmological
>Theory is wrong. Quantum mechanics theory is wrong. Geological theory is 
>wrong.

This only depends on what particular view point you take. Since the creation
involves and covers all these things the basis for them was obviously created. 
Okay you say it wasn't created?  Why is it here then, something must have
caused it to happen.
>
>>From my point of view on the other side of the
>Atlantic "Creation Science" is another whacky American idea.

American?

 Rather like
>the ideas of the people who believe that The United Nations is planning
>to subjugate the population and is spying on them from black helicopters.

Okay, has anyone spotted suspicious looking black helicopters?  This is for a
conspiracy newsgroup for sure!  Actually it is being done by genetically
engineered black butterflies & moths.   WATCH OUT!
>
>
>-- 
>Neil Jones


S.