UTCSTAFF Archives

February 2005

UTCSTAFF@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Suzanna Nichols <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Suzanna Nichols <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:20:39 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (43 lines)
Well, I couldn't stand to see Stephen out on the limb all by himself, so
I'll join him--

All,
Did anyone observe God create life?  Did anyone observe evolution create
life?
Since life is not currently being created now, then the investigation
into the origin of life is a historical investigation, not a scientific
investigation.  Today life reproduces after its own kind.  But, at one
point it had to be caused to come into being.  Evolutionists believe
that natural forces are the cause of the origin of life.  Creationists
believe that a supernatural force caused life to originate.  Either way,
it happened once and in the past.  And the acceptance of either theory
is a matter of faith.
One's beliefs about the origin of life necessarily colors their
assumptions about the way in which the universe works today.  It also
biases the way in which one investigate the way in which the universe
and the life within it works today.  It's not wrong to be biased.  It is
wrong to deny your own bias and vilify others for having a different bias.
That brings us back to academic freedom.  It's wrong for one bias to
monopolize the discussion and to shut out the opposition.
I don't expect evolutionists to accept a supernatural cause for the
origin of life.  I do expect them to be honest enough to admit that
their prior rejection of a supernatural cause is the reason that they
reject theories that include, for example, a worldwide flood as a part
of an explanation for mass extinction and fossilization; coal, oil and
natural gas formation; mountain and canyon formation; and the
unreliability of radiometric dating.  Or that their same a priori bias
against all things Biblical is the basis of their rejection of the
creationist theory that the "kinds" of life are separate and distinct
from one another, that variation within a kind is to be expected as a
result of natural selection on the genetic information inherent to that
kind, and that one kind cannot give rise to another kind.  (The idea of
"kinds" comes from the KJV interpretation of the Hebrew word bara.
Creationists who work in this particular field, small though it is,
equate the Biblical bara/kind with the Linnean classification level
family-- although there is not a firm consensus on this.)
We all have observed mountains and canyons, variation and natural
selection, but only a select few get to voice their opinions on the
origins of the things that we all observe.
No need to respond, I'll just ask Stephen for updates.
Suzanna Nichols

ATOM RSS1 RSS2