Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 01:44:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5209 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Joseph Williams writes:
>
> > Evolution is concerned with the origins of life not the universe.
>
> I disagree. Evolution does not speak to the origins of life on a particular
> planet. It merely posits a mechanism by which life on that planet, once
> underway (by whatever way it came into being, which Evolution is mute on),
> can fill all available niches in the ecology, and can appear to change over
> time in response to changes in the environment. (Speciation)
>
> The seminal text is "On the Origins of Species", after all, not "On the
> Origins of Life"
my bad and duly noted. I did say in that post 'The intial spark of life is
debatable too' which I really should have clarified at the beginning as
well. Your explanation as to how evolution does not get involved into that
murky area is great, and it's true, the concern is the process of
diversifacation. I personally think that every one of our behaviour traits
can be found in either continuity of the individual or species.
>
> Just wanted to toss that out there.
>
> Accepting evolution as a process to explain (observed and observable)
> changes in organisms does not mean that you have an explanation for how life
> came to be on a planet, nor does it mean you have an explanation or even
> description of the events at the start of time as we measure it in this
> cosmos, popularly and incorrectly referred to as the big bang.
>
> One of my problems with creationists in general is that they don't seem to
> honor these distinctions very well in their arguments. Hence I don't think
> they're qualified to request that their beliefs about speciation be taught
> as an alternate hypothesis to evolution.
I don't think they are comparable fields of learning although the
Creationists have forced the issue ( not with the best of intentions either
). But since the comparison is there you don't see Evolutionists working so
hard to discredit Creationism. That has nothing to do with their research.
An educated Creationist should be taking Cosmologists to task for they
challenge the origins of the Universe. hmm.. didn't the pope even advocate
an mixed view of the 2 fields that embraced dinosaurs?...
In 1996, Pope John Paul II spoke at the annual meeting of the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences, which has been called "the Church's 'scientific senate'
". He said, in part:
"Today, more than a half century after this ['Humani Generis'] encyclical,
new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a
hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of
work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a
significant argument in favor of this theory [of evolution]."
cheers, Joseph
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) I disagree. Evolution does not speak to the origins of life on a particular planet. It merely posits a mechanism by which life on that planet, once underway (by whatever way it came into being, which Evolution is mute on), can fill all (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
