RE: Darkness spreads over Kansas

Cummins (
Sun, 15 Aug 1999 18:58:40 -0500

> I have been following this with a great deal of interest. I am a
> creationist. I am not a scientist, but consider myself a student of the
> truth. I would like to respond with this:

The several reports I've seen on this from the mainstream media are some of
the most blatantly biased I've seen in a while. For how insignificant the
board's decision is, there sure are a lot of warnings of doom being passed
on by reporters.

> Both Evolution and Creationism are theories. Neither have the scientific
> backing to be proven. Why should evolution be taught as fact when it is
> theory? Why should creationism be taught as fact when it is
> theory? Why not
> teach "science" in the school system, give students the tools to test,
> evaluate, discuss, and come to scientific conclusion based on facts of the
> creation/evolution debate?

Both Evolution and Creation are models, not theories. You hear
Evolutionists say that Evolution ties the natural sciences together. It
ties them together because it's the model in which the secular scientists
use to provide context for their observations.

> My views are based on the information available to me at the time. If
> someone has information that can prove the macroevelutionary
> theory, I would
> be interested.

I've proposed to this list in the past that nature isn't creative and thus
cannot be used to explain the origin of complex organisms. Before claiming
that Evolution is a fact, someone ought to make the effort to demonstrate
that Evolution is even possible in the first place by producing it.

Ask for bread and you'll get stones. When you ask for an example of
Evolution, you get things that are utterly insignificant and unimpressive.
Anti-biotic resistant bacteria is still bacteria, still the same kind of
bacteria and usually it's not otherwise as fit as the parent bacteria. The
order of a snowflake is as limited as the pre-existing properties of a water
molecule. Artificial examples of evolution often lack basic elements, such
as tests of viability for intermediate states or a novel final product.

Evolution is a simple concept: mutation plus selection equals the ability to
create new complexity. So, where's the example of Evolution from those
thousands of generations of fruit flies, or those millions of generations of
synthetic creatures than can be produce on a computer?

Evolution's strength doesn't come from science, but from the government and
anti-Christian sentiments.