Thanks to Stephen Nichols, we now have several references to sites devoted
to Creationist research. In respectful response, allow me to offer two links
of interest:

http://members.aol.com/darrwin/things.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/

The first provides a very readable, satirical outline of the intellectual
difficulties faced by proponents of creationism. The secular humanists among
us should enjoy this one especially.

The second link is a world-class site dedicated to the creation/evolution
controversy -- a site endorsed by many universities, PBS, the Smithsonian,
Scientific American, the National Academy of Science, and other like
organizations.

May your Spring Break be blessed with a wealth of new information and
restored serenity.

Gavin Townsend



----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Nichols" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 6:43 PM
Subject: [UTCSTAFF] Final final installment


> Chris,
>
> I've taken the bait several times in this debate and subsequently raced
> down a few dead-end roads, but not this time.
>
> The purpose of this exercise was to discuss the scientific dissent to
> Darwinism.  It is there and should be heard.
>
> http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php
> http://www.arn.org/ (Intelligent Design)
> http://www.creationresearch.org (Creation Research, published since 1964)
>
> A second purpose was to draw attention to the fact that we are all
> biased by our a priori commitment to something.
>
> Further, devout evolutionists ARE afraid of the Intelligent Design
> movement.
>
> Science's New Heresy Trial
> By: Gene Edward Veith
> World Magazine
> February 18, 2005
> (http://www.worldmag.com/displayarticle.cfm?id=10344)
>
> For those of you who didn't visit the site, here's a taste of what Mr
> Veith had to say.
>
> "Science is typically praised as open-ended and free, pursuing the
> evidence wherever it leads. Scientific conclusions are falsifiable, open
> to further inquiry, and revised as new data emerge. Science is free of
> dogma, intolerance, censorship, and persecution."
> "By these standards, Darwinists have become the dogmatists. Scientists
> at the Smithsonian Institute, supported by American taxpayers, are
> punishing one of their own simply for publishing an article about
> Intelligent Design."
> "Historically, said Mr. Meyer, science has sought 'the best explanation,
> period, wherever the evidence leads.' But now the scientific
> establishment is requiring something else: 'the best materialistic
> explanation for phenomenon.' That rules out non-materialistic
> explanations from the onset, demanding adherence to the worldview that
> presumes the material realm is all that exists..."
> "The virulence of the attempts to suppress Intelligent Design
> demonstrates the Darwinists' insecurity. 'You don't resort to
> authoritarianism,' observed Mr. Meyer, 'if you can answer it.'"
>
> As I've said since last Friday, our bias colors the way we see the
> world.  I recognize and admit that I am biased to see life as a direct
> consequence of a Creator.  Further, there is growing scientific evidence
> in the biological sciences that life was in fact designed and not the
> result of macro-evolution.  Scientific dissent to Darwinism exists.
>
> Stephen
>