Subject:
|
Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:48:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
615 times
|
| |
|
|
Jon Kozan wrote:
> Are the facts and conclusions credible?
The only thing that is credible, other than perhaps my conclusion that you have
got to be winding me up about all this, is that "Dr Dino" has been kissing the
blarney stone in a big way. For example, on the "win a great deal of cash"
section, he says:
"Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from
nothing. "
This is not the case. The theory most generally taught for this at school level
is the Big Bang theory, which has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of
evolution.
"2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets
around
the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic
evolution.) "
Wrong. I'm a better cosmeticist than cosmologist, but even I know that gravity
and other fundamental forces (chemical, nuclear, subatomic) are generally taught
as being part of the process responsible for the above. Referring to this as
cosmic evolution is sophistry; the term evolution can be applied to any
changing, directed process - for example, "The Evolution of Lego as a Creative
Medium in the 20th Century". Saying so does not mean that Lego Marketing
Strategies are taught in schools under the banner of Evolution.
"3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving
matter (chemical evolution). "
Wrong. No-one claims evolution is responsible for creating life from non-life.
Evolution is cited as the process that happens once life is established.
Interestingly enough, it is precisely this point that one has to prove correct
to win the cash prize - in other words, he is "disproving" evolution by offering
an incentive to prove that something entirely different from evolution exists.
Pure sophistry.
"4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing
themselves. "
A spurious point. As far as I know DNA is the substance responsible for the
above, and while modified DNA can be responsible for evolution, that is an
indirect relationship. From what I gather the jury is still very much out on the
process behind reproductive drive. Check out the work of Richard Dawkins, for
example.
"5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms
of
living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth
today (biological
evolution)."
Finally some sense, although I fear he uses the term "spontaneous" to play
things for laughs somewhat. When I think of large changes due to evolution, I'm
thinking in terms of aeons rather than the snap of fingers.
So, one point out of his five actually pertains to evolution - and you don't get
any cash for proving that one right.
Need I say more?
Jennifer Clark
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
78 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
