On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:18:54 GMT, "Steve Peterson"
wrote:


"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
.. .
The statement of the Steve's List of the National Center for Public
Education says:


Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the
biological
sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the
idea
that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are
legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is
no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural
selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically
inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist
pseudoscience,
including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into
the
science curricula of our nation's public schools.


i.e., the theory of evolution has now been reduced to orthodox dogma, and
to dare question it is tantamount to heresy and shall be dealt with
severely.

FYI, there are numerous scientists with strong credentials who strongly
question the dogma of macro-evolutionary theory.

The list of "Dissent from Darwin" is at
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=443.

Steve's List is at
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp

Have a party trying to evaluate one list or the other for compelling
evidence for or against evolution. As a signer of Steve's List, I am not
impartial. I can agree that evolution by competition and selection is a
central feature of modern science; the reasons are not dogma but instead are
the result a huge amount of supporting evidence and a lucid, comprehensive
theoretical basis. As investigation continues, these supporting data and
understanding will continue to build a coherent
theory. ID boils down to an assertion of ignorance and inability to account
for some things. We will all see how it goes.


Just as a point of clarification; very few people argue nor disagree with
the theory of microevolution within species. What I've seen as arguments
regarding the evolution of new species seem to be stretching the definition
of "new species" quite broadly. The poster who argued that predictions
within the fossil record using the horse as an example serve to point that
out. The horse is still a horse and not a cow nor something between a
horse and a cow or between a piece of primordial slime and a horse. What
is lacking is the "between-things" that one would expect to see. Modern
evolutionary theory has simply substituted "time" for "God".

Frankly, the issue of evolutionary theory is somewhat premature if modern
cosmology cannot adequately identify the origin of the universe without
violating the laws of logic and causality.

A broad majority of those who believe that intelligent design is a
reasonable explanation for the origin of universe are still interested in
science and exploring the world around them (as opposed to the derision of
those who claim those who adhere to the theory of intelligent design as
just wanting to use the phrase "God did it" when encountering questions).
They just approach that science from a different point of view -- rather
than trying to look at everything as some means of identifying the origins
of the universe, they approach these questions as trying to identify how
the universe around them works.

Steven Peterson




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+