Re: Yet more denigrating of Apologists (was Why?)

J.D. Guzman (
Fri, 24 Apr 1998 02:00:16 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Morton <>
To: Ron Chitwood <>; Stephen Jones <>;
Evolution Reflector <>
Date: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: Yet more denigrating of Apologists (was Why?)

>At 10:38 AM 4/22/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
>>No it is not fair. I think both views should be taught in public school
>>compared. <<<<
>>This we agree on absolutely!!!
>I noticed that you avoided my question. Are you willing that evidence both
>in favor of and evidence against young earth creationism be taught in
>schools? Would you allow me as a guest speaker for your child's class?
>if you are willing that evidence against young-earth creationism be taught
>in public school, the question arises as to whether or not you have invited
>into your church a speaker against young-earth creationism. If not, why

Well although I haven't been active in this discussion I am going to jump in
here. Glenn I would be delighted if creatioism were taught in schools. I
think it would be wonderful to allow students to decide for themselves what
theory they would like to accept.

As to your question, I would allow evidence for and against creationism to
be presented, only if the same were applied to evolution. As much as people
would like to think that the theory of evolution is fact and proven, that is
not the case. There is evidence that goes directly against the theory, and
none of this is even mentioned in the schools.

Behe's book is an example of things that the theory of evolution has failed
to explain, and, that if they continue to be unexplained, present a great
challange to the theory. However, Behe's book is only one example of an
area that evolution hasn't been able to address properly. There is also the
fact that evolution of the type that would give rise to the diverse amount
of species that we have hasn't been observed. Furthermore, there hasn't
been any experiment done that would even merrit a conclusion that we all
come from a common ancestor.

Another thing is abiogenesis. It is a known fact that no one has been able
to show that the building blocks of life could have formed randomly. The
expiriments that have been done have all been in labratory, and almost every
aspect of the expiriment is controled. Such expiriments prove nothing,
after all, the conditions billions of years ago were far from labratory

So as you can see, although evolution has done a great deal in allowing us
to understand how change occurs in animal species at the microevolutionary
scale, it has done nothing at the macroevolutionary scale.

So fine present the evidence for and against creationism, but do the same
for evolution.

Best Regards,

J.D. Guzman