🚀 go-pugleaf

Brian J Flanagan (bflanagn@sleepy.giant.net) wrote:
: 
: 
: On 4 May 1997, Paul J. Gans wrote:
: 
: > Marcelo Cantos (marcelo@mds.rmit.edu.au) wrote:
: > : wf3h@enter.netxx writes:
: > : 
: > : > On 3 May 1997 02:33:24 GMT, jgardner@ringer.cs.utsa.edu (John Gardner)
: > : > wrote:
: > : > 
: > : > >wf3h@enter.net wrote:
: > : > 
: > : > >: thats what happens with competition and the diversity of
: > : > >: environments...no designer needed.
: > : > >
: > : > >assuming evolution and not weighing evidence.
: > : > 
: > : > uh, prove it. science IS evolution and NO designer. unless you have
: > : > some reason for including magic...
: > : 
: > : You've just revealed your ideological bias by presupposing evolution.
: > 
: > 
: > Bingo!  You've just been caught in the Giant Double Meaning Trap.
: > There are two evolutions.  One is the FACT of evolution.  This
: > fact comes from the observation that life has changed during
: > the geologic history of the earth.  This is not in doubt as
: > invalidating it would require invalidating almost all of 
: > geology and much of chemistry, physics, and astronomy.
: 
: 
: BJ: To be sure. The entire debate devolves upon a simple-minded, 
: literalistic interpretation of Genesis. A more enlightened view might 
: have it that evolution is the dance of creation, and that the order which 
: science reveals is by design - that might be an interesting debate, at 
: least, whereas this continual exchange is really only so much tired 
: drivel between subgeniuses who have already made up their minds. 

Of course it depends on a literalistic interpretation of Genesis.
What in blazes do you think drives creationists?  

If I understand what you are saying (and I'm not sure I do, poetic
terms tend to confuse me in technical discussions) is that God's
plan involves evolution and that He set the universe up that way.
If I am correct, then I must make two observations:  (1) your
view will never be accepted by creationists, who will condemn
you to the nearest hell as a non-christian unbeliever, and (2)
your viewpoint does not in any way contradict the scientific
position.  Of course, it doesn't confirm it either because
being an untestable statement, it is quite outside the purview
of science.  Doesn't make it wrong, mind you, just untestable.

    ------ Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]