Date: Fri Dec 17 1993 18:30:24 To: All Subj: Anti-evolution letter EVOLUTION

Date:   Fri Dec 17 1993  18:30:24
From:   David Bloomberg
To:     All
Subj:   Anti-evolution letter
EVOLUTION                      -------------------------------

Here is an anti-evolution letter written to a local paper (the _Illinois
Times_) in response to a very good evolution/creation article. 
Below, I pick it apart. 

                       Fire and Water

To the editor:
     Your November 24, 1993 feature entitled "The evolution
solution?" was a thought-provoking article.  The "spin" of
the article was such that evolution is a science and
creation is of a religious nature.  It is along these lines
that I direct my comments.
     Evolution is advanced as a scientific theory, yet in
reality it possesses no scientific basis.  In order for a
scientific theory to be true, one must be able to measure
it, observe it, and repeat it.  Neither creation nor
evolution can meet these tests--hence, neither can be
thought of as scientific theories.  They both should be
viewed as scientific models.
     ...It is amazing that scientists, educators, and the
media continually portray creation as religious and
evolution as a scientific fact.  Actually the opposite is
true.  Evolution is much more religious than creation.
Evolution is a world view.  It is a philosophy of life and
meaning.  Evolution is an attempt to explain th eorigin an
development of everything without God, making it an
atheistic religion.  Evolution has to be accepted by faith.
In addition, it serves as the basic philosophy for most of
the world's major religions.
     ...As for Springfield School District 186, the article
stated that the teaching of evolution is not controversial
and school officials want to keep it that way.  If the
teaching of evolution is not controversial in District 186,
it is probably because the teaching of creation has
effectively been banned from the curricula in the name of
church-state separation.  Upon examining one high school
biology book currently in use, I found a whole chapter on
evolution and about two lines on creation.  What a shame
this is.
     If only District 186 administrators and teachers would
look, they would find books that deal with creation-
evolution from a scientific point of view, books which
attempt to evaluate the physical evidence for creation from
the relevant scientific fields without reference to the
Bible or other religious literature.  It only seems fair to
me tha tif evolution is to be taught in our public schools,
scientific creation should also be taught.
     The article also made reference to the Evolution and
the Nature of Science Institute (ENSI).  This outfit sounds
like the creationist's worst nightmare!  The article seemed
to project the ENSI as a place for teachers to learn how to
blend creation with evolution.  The two are as compatible as
fire and water.
     ...It is my hope that the SSU professor of biology and
environmental studies who was quoted in the article will
someday open his biology textbooks and find a disclaimer on
the first page stating, "Creation is a fact, a favorite
argument of those who promote teaching evolution as
science."

                         James R. Hartwig
                         Springfield

==========================================================================

Date:   Fri Dec 17 1993  18:31:22
From:   David Bloomberg
To:     All
Subj:   Anti-evolution letter, picked apart
EVOLUTION                      -------------------------------

In a msg to All on , James Hartwig writes:

 DB>      Evolution is advanced as a scientific theory, yet in reality it
 DB> possesses no scientific basis.  In order for a scientific theory to be
 DB> true, one must be able to measure it, observe it, and repeat it.  Neither
 DB> creation nor evolution can meet these tests--hence, neither can be
 DB> thought of as scientific theories.  They both should be viewed as
 DB> scientific models.

As often is the case with those against evolution, it seems Mr. Hartwig
understands very little about it.  He says the evidence for the theory cannot
be measured, observed, or repeated.  This is simply untrue.  The fossil record
has been, and is still being, measured and observed, and finds within that
record have been repeated a great many times over the years.  The theory of
evolution makes falsifiable predictions about what should be found, which is a
true hallmark of any scientific theory, and those predictions have been borne
out again and again.

 DB>      ...It is amazing that scientists, educators, and the media
 DB> continually portray creation as religious and evolution as a scientific
 DB> fact.  Actually the opposite is true.  Evolution is much more religious
 DB> than creation.  Evolution is a world view.  It is a philosophy of life
 DB> and meaning.  Evolution is an attempt to explain the origin and
 DB> development of everything without God, making it an atheistic religion.

Evolution does not, as Mr. Hartwig asserts, "attempt to explain the origin and
development of everything without God."  The existence, or lack thereof, of a
deity simply does not come into play.  And if Mr. Hartwig truly understood the
theory, he would realize that it only considers what has happened to life after
it began -- it does not address the actual beginning of life.

 DB> Evolution has to be accepted by faith.

No.  Evolution is accepted based on evidence.

 DB> Upon examining one high school biology book currently in use, I found a
 DB> whole chapter on evolution and about two lines on creation.  What a shame
 DB> this is.

Yes, it is a shame that the topic of creationism is even brought up in a
high-school textbook.  

 DB>      The article also made reference to the Evolution and the Nature of
 DB> Science Institute (ENSI).  This outfit sounds like the creationist's worst
 DB> nightmare!  The article seemed to project the ENSI as a place for teachers
 DB> to learn how to blend creation with evolution.  The two are as compatible
 DB> as fire and water.

The article (which the people reading this response have never read) actually
does no such thing, and neither does ENSI.  It was mentioned that ENSI can show
teachers that evolution does not, as some would have us believe, mean that
there cannot be a God.  It most certainly does NOT try to blend evolution and
creationism.