Well said, Ted!!!

Lou (happy to join you dodging tomatos) Cook


-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Ashton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] FW: [HP3000-L] OT: Ohio wants to teach "2001" in
2 002 and beyond


Thus it was written in the epistle of Heasman, David,
>  > Intelligent design proponents already have a theory that is better than
>  > evolution.
>
>  Please, please Roy, give this one your attention.
>  If you can contain the hilarity. Or ennui...
>
>  "Ham sandwich alert"!

David,
  You may not agree with what has been written--you may be resting
comfortably
on the idea that you have the only truth, but it is unnecessary and
inappropriate to speak insultingly of what others believe (and further, it
can
be dangerous--on the chance that they happen to be correct :-).  The message
to
which you refer was reasoned and straightforward and said some things which
were worth saying.

<*steps up on small soapbox*>

  There has been a gradual change in the history of the Theory of Evolution
which bears noticing.  The initial question was one of whether it is
possible
to envision a history of life which does not include a creator.  Over the
years, that goal has been approached, though there are many steps yet to
take
before it is completely reached.  In that same time, however, there has been
a
change to the idea that we have somehow proved that there is no creator.  As
a
mathematician, I am troubled by that.  To prove something unnecesary is very
different from proving that it does not exist.  Creating an alternative
explanation is not the same as proving that the original explanation is
incorrect.
  Along with that change has come an cocksureness and arrogance which are
unbecoming of thinking people and I am sorry for that.  Those who believe in
creation hold with the original theory and the burden of proof lies not with
them but with the proponents of the new theory.  Unquestionably, both
theories
have significant weaknesses.  Yet both are theories and both are held by
intelligent, reasoning scientists.  In fact, there are stories *on both
sides*
of scientists changing from one camp to the other through their exploration.
"Creation Science" is not, as my friend Wirt appears to believe, an oxymoron
any more than "Evolution Science" is.  The scientists who work in that realm
differ from their evolution-believing counterparts in their conclusions, but
not in their methods or abilities.

<*steps down while ducking one last tomato*>

Ted
--
Ted Ashton ([log in to unmask]) | From the Tom Swifty collection:
Southern Adventist University    | "My job is to lead the audience's
Deep thought to be found at      | applause", Tom clucked.
http://www.southern.edu/~ashted  |

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *