RE: teaching evolution & creation science in public schools...

From: Alexanian, Moorad <>
Date: Sat Apr 02 2005 - 16:43:23 EST

I am referring to aspects of biology as microbiology, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, etc. and not to the aspect of history so essential in historical biology. Similarly for geology.



From: Michael Roberts []
Sent: Sat 4/2/2005 1:36 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; Jan de Koning;
Subject: Re: teaching evolution & creation science in public schools...

Just what kind of science do you accept? It seems biology and geology don't

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <>
To: "Jan de Koning" <>; <>
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 6:06 PM
Subject: RE: teaching evolution & creation science in public schools...

> Science deals with dynamical laws to which one must add initial conditions
> and so determine the future time development of the system. This is also
> so in quantum mechanics. If one wants to deduce initial conditions at
> very fundamental levels, then one must entertain questions regarding
> creation or origin. Otherwise, I find it hard to accept creation being
> introduced in science classes. Of course, let us not forget that the
> steady state theory of Gold-Bondi-Hoyle required creation of matter,
> albeit a tiny amount. Presently, both ID and evolution may not qualify as
> science in which case when one is discussed in class one should not avoid
> mention of the other.
> Moorad
> ________________________________
> From: on behalf of Jan de Koning
> Sent: Sat 4/2/2005 11:30 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: teaching evolution & creation science in public schools...
> At 03:08 AM 4/2/2005, Steven Carr wrote among other things:
>> No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that
>>is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for
>>creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim
>>equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes.
>> Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in
>>sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say
>>that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that
>>person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not
>>consider that).'
> This way of arguing does not get us anywhere. Though, I must say that I
> find it tiresome that I hardly ever heard any arguments on this forum
> against some points I made about Bible translation, which go much further
> than just the creation story. ( I mentioned that the same word "nephesh"
> in Gen. 1 is translated in some translations as "life", but in Gen.2 as
> "soul".)
> Granted, that type is going on in many places in the Bible as all Bible
> translators have a certain "philosophy of life" which determines the way
> they translate old documents.
> So, Gen. 1 - 11 was written by and spoken to people who did not speak
> modern English, nor did they learn any geography. Their "history"
> knowledge was limited to some generations back, but certainly not hundreds
> of years. We should not expect Bible translators to have a philosophy of
> understanding "life", "languages" etc. etc. which prevents serious
> errors. Even in our own thinking we make mistakes in understanding what
> we
> read in English. As long as we talk out of different backgrounds we will
> never agree..
> My objections to our discussions here are:
> 1. that linguistic arguments about translations are not answered, or
> sometimes based on texts which are part of the"mistakes" in
> translations. On this forum these arguments are impossible to lead to
> agreements. Not only can these only be answered by specialists in a
> particular area, but a thorough discussion will take years, and often
> needs
> to be discussed by specialists in a particular area.
> 2. Evolution is an ongoing process. Saying that it worked differently in
> the past is logically difficult, if not impossible, to accept.
> 3. God spoke to people in a way they would understand, but not all people
> have a modern-day English understanding of "truth." Not many centuries
> ago "truth" was relayed to the next generations in stories, which had a
> deep meaning, but which were not necessarily based on facts. As a matter
> of fact, some people do still educate that way.
> 4. Unfortunately the discussions here are limited to the English language
> thus eliminating references to other languages. Else, I would be able to
> quote some orthodox theologians in the 19th century, who did not argue
> against evolution, since they did not see it contradicting the Bible.
> 5. My uncle studied (unfortunately in Dutch) in explaining the beginning
> of the Bible (he was an Old Testament specialist) old Egyptian tablets
> (found at El Amarna) and old Babylonian history. On the basis of these
> studies he said that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not "history" in
> our sense of the word. For example, the numbers mentioned in these
> chapters are impossible to fit in with the time these chapters are talking
> about. (I don't know about other universities, but I know that his book
> is
> in the library of the University of Toronto, and I have seen a copy in
> another library as well. I used to have two copies, but I cannot remember
> what I did with the second copy.)
> Can we agree, that even if not everyone agrees, there are more than one
> explanation, and even translation of certain biblical texts?
> Still, as Christians we accept the Bible as God's Word, even if we do not
> agree with each other? This forum is not a forum to condemn each other,
> but to build each other up in an environment which is often hostile to
> Christians.
> Jan de Koning
Received on Sat Apr 2 16:46:34 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 02 2005 - 16:46:34 EST