[TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 35, Issue 6

[kd4e]

> "Big Bang" and Evolution are both based on the scientific method, and the 
> latter has been quite well proven. Creation and Intelligent Design are both 
> matters of faith. If the human race is to survive, it is critical that we 
> understand the difference, and not be shouted down by those who would impose 
> their faith on others. While I am a person thoroughly grounded in my faith 
> and practice it, I do understand that difference. 
> Jim Brown K9YC

This statement is not based upon fact.  Darwin noted later
in life that he had serious concerns that his *theory*
may be unsupportable.

The *theory* of evolution has never been successfully
subjected to the most critical elements of scientific
validation (reproducability among others).

Mathematicians have shown the presumptions of evolution
so greatly exceed the requirements of possibility so as
to be categorized as absurd.

The scientific movement known as "intelligent design"
counts among its number many who claim no religious
faith whatsoever, some of whom have labeled the zealots
for evolution as behaving in a "religious" manner.

That there are some in the movement who have personal
religious beliefs is not a ground upon which one may
rationally dismiss their arguments.

Non-religious supporters of intelligent design do not
claim to have the answer to the origins of life on
earth, they merely have the integrity to recognize
that evolution fails scientifically.  (Some non-religious
intelligent design proponents postulate that life on
earth came from species from other planets.  They
choose to not attempt to speculate on their origins.)

It is interesting that supporters of evolution want to
so desperately prove that the origins of life on earth
are the result of random spontaneous events -- such
is driven by a "religious" insistence that life started
on this planet.

One must recall that the origins of the theory of
evolution are in a religious dispute and Darwin's goal
was to present an alternative to the dominent religious
theory -- his presumption was non-scientific because he
left no room for a non-earth source of life.

I am *not* promoting a non-earth source, I am just
noting that it is not correct to state that the *theory
of evolution* "has been quite well proven" because
it is not so.

Here are a couple of resources:
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
http://www.arn.org/

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks! & 73, doc kd4e
Echoes of Eden Blog: http://bibleseven.com/blog1/blog.html


            |_|___|_|
            | | & | |
               {|
       /\      {|
      /  \     {|
     /    \    {|
    /   @  \   {|
    |   |~_|~~~~|
    |   -| |    |
============\ #   Ham Page: http://bibleseven.com/kd4e.html
      KD4E     =============================================
West Central Florida

      /\ /\
?(~~~{ @ @ }  Sent from
  (      *     Puppy Linux  http://www.goosee.com/puppy
  (        )
   ~~~~~~~~~
   / /   / /
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~