This is my first attempt to email ASA. Excuse me if I do it
After reading several posts, I still have the same question as I did a
number of years ago. They are :
1.) Exactly what is the "fact" of evolution (precisely stated)?
2.) Exactly what is the "theory of evolution" (precisely stated)?
Everything that I read is so soft and fleshy that one might argue
forever because the terrain shifts back and forth like the desert in El
Paso during a windstorm. People like to cite "Darwin's theory" but I am
yet to see a precise, scientific of that -- which would be acceptable
today and yet true to Darwin's Theory..
"Creation science" has the advantage of being more specific. Perhaps
that is why it is so easy to tear apart.
george murphy wrote:
> "Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
>> The term "special creation" is familiar to most of us on the list.
>> But I've
>> often wondered about the word "special" in this context. In most
>> circumstances, "special" is contrasted to "ordinary." In this case,
>> that seems rather odd. Are we to think of two categories of divine
>> activity, one "special" and the other merely "ordinary"?
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <email@example.com>
In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 08 2001 - 15:11:57 EST