Re: Glenn's departure.

John W Burgeson (
Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:13:25 -0700

Adam wrote:

"On a more scientific note, who here believes in human evolution and who
has good reason not to?"

I will assert that the word "believe" in the above is not a good choice
of words.

As a scientist, I hold that the evolution story (whatever the
mechanism(s) may have been) is not only the "best" explanation of the
appearance of humankind, but the only one possible. Even assuming we were
"built" by alien "intelligent agents," the agents then must have evolved.

Since my expertise lies neither in biology nor geology, I pretty much
accept the findings of people who are in these professions. As a
Christian, as a (very) amateur philosopher, I am highly dissatisfied
with the evolution mechanisms that have been proposed to date. I hold
personally to a form of progressive creationism, perhaps along the line
of Dr. Pun of Wheaten College. If God intervened in the causal sequence
of events at the Cana wedding, as well as in other scriptural stories,
then it seems reasonable to me He has intervened at other times and
places. But this is a philosophical, not a scientific, statement.

As a physicist, I do not "believe" in gravitation, much less in any
particular theory of gravitation. I accept the data, and the theories, as
"best fits today" to our understanding. The theories are not "truth,"
they are, at best, a shadow of reality.


Get secure free e-mail that you don't need Web access to use
from Juno, the world's second largest online service.
Download your free software at