I think, Terry, that one critical point is missing in that essay. It is
the way that a significant fraction of the people think one means by the
term "evolution". Because of the influence of vocal atheists,
"evolution" carries the connotation not of factual data but rather of
Darwinian evolutionary theory. Specifically it means that change took
place in living organisms by purely random events. The reason that
different species survived is because of "natural selection" or
"survival of the fittest" in the search for food. You killed and ate
your adversary before he killed and ate you. If the randomness had
tugged a different way, then we could have had smart pigs or intelligent
giant grasshoppers, rather than humans as the dominant species. As such,
one has the options of believing
1.) That God is capricious
2.) There is no God involved
3.) Scientists are wrong about evolution.
Given this perspective, those who know God reject 1 and 2 and adhere to
3 as the only logical alternative --- and frankly they are not to be
faulted (IMO). Notice that I have said nothing about the Bible.
If the Bible is brought into play, then one has a better story that what
science has to offer --- a "literal" story that may be read as history
and has none of the above flaws.
It will take far more than the article you cite. Until ASA or somebody
takes the high ground of evolution by refuting the notion of
purposelessness that the term "evolution" evokes, then the Dawkins
version will survive and the battle is truly lost.
Terry M. Gray wrote:
> There's nothing finer than a statement that's been around for over 25
> years in the ASA and on the web since1996 or so:
> entitled "We Believe in Creation". It was even distributed as a
> pamphlet for a while.
> As a 15 year veteran of homeschooling (5 kids with 2 of them still in
> elementary grades at home), I can't say that I personally know a
> single homeschooler outside of our family who teaches evolution to
> their kids. All of the Christian textbook publishers commonly used by
> homeschoolers are YEC (Abeka from Pensacola Christian College and Bob
> Jones). Their elementary school and biology books are pure YEC when
> it comes to all biology, historical geology and cosmology topics. We
> have used a late 80's early 90's Scott Foresman curriculum for
> elementary and junior high. We found the coverage of evolution,
> geology, and cosmology to be accurate (within the bounds expected for
> elementary and junior high textbooks) and in no way prejudicial
> against our evangelical Christian faith.
> In the Grand Rapids, Michigan area, homeschooling is an alternative
> to the rather established Christian Schools (with Christian Reformed
> informal ties). The expense is one reason homeschooling is
> flourishing as a Christian education alternative, but the teaching of
> evolution (even within a Christian worldview context) was often cited
> as another reason why people didn't send their kids to the local
> Christian schools.
> >Unfortunately, my experience is that most evangelical church
> >leaders are
> >either YECs or at least YEC sympathizers, so I foresee little likelihood of
> >such a curriculum being offered in evangelical churches. And I would bet
> >real money that most home schooling materials are anti evolutionary.
> >Pro-evolution advocacy by militant atheists is not helping either..
> >Perhaps a strong statement by the ASA that you can believe in evolution and
> >the gospel would be helpful. What do you think, guys?
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
> >Behalf Of Freeman, Louise Margaret
> >Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 9:52 AM
> >To: asa
> >> An overall result of the NSF study is that science education &
> >>scientific literacy in the US is, in a word, bad. I think that the
> >>state of science education is an important social issue that churches
> >>should be addressing.
> >I having just read Miller's Finding Darwin's God and being half-way through
> >Pennock's "Tower of Babel." I couldn't agree more. (Your book is next on my
> >list, George!) What seems to be needed is some sort of cirriculum for a
> >School-type class that incorporates that type of explanation of evolutionary
> >theory with a polite but well-reasoned refutation of the typical YEC
> >misinformation AND a thoughtful study of the relevant scriptures. (Add a
> >video presentaion and a guarentee of weight loss and babies sleeping through
> >the night and you might have yourself a best seller! :)
> >> A related issue: Some may reply that the answer to
> >>education is home schooling. But that prompts another question: What
> >>fraction of kids who are being home schooled are being taught some
> >>variant of creation science or ID?
> >Of ones that are being home-schooled primarily for religious reasons,
> >a lot. How many well-meaning home-schooling parents are finding nothing but
> >that in the Christian-based materials being marketed to them? Until
> >evolutionists get better at presented their science as complementary to
> >than in opposition to a Christian worldview, homeschooling parents will have
> >little incentive to seek out such materials for their children.
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
> firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
> phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
-- =================================== 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 : Tue May 21 2002 - 11:09:12 EDT