Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 SMI; site husky.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!husky!jsm
From: jsm@husky.uucp (Jeff Mapes)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: A newcomer's views
Message-ID: <126@husky.uucp>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 11:52:31 EST
Article-I.D.: husky.126
Posted: Mon Jan 28 11:52:31 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Feb-85 01:06:08 EST
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY
Lines: 60


     
     Thanks to a friend who has access to your net.origins, I have been
reading the postings for several months now with considerable disturbance of
soul.  I am neither scientist or theologian (I'm an engineer), so my views
represent a layman's perspective.
     First, I am disturbed by the vituperative, arrogant, and condescending
attitude of many of the anti-creationist responses.  Creationists are called
dishonest and even stupid.  It seems that most posters to the net on both
sides have advanced degrees (many PhD's) and the fact that their conclusions
harmonize with their philosophy may make them wrong but not stupid.
     Second, although there seems to be acknowledgement that science is
tentative and only approaches the truth asymptotically, there is a curious
lack of humility -- evolution being portrayed as so solid that all who
question it are labelled incompetent.
     Third, although the fact that creationism is embedded in a
philosophical perspective is often pointed out and fully acknowledged by
creationists, it is never acknowledged that evolution is equally embedded in
its philosphical perspective of naturalism.  When one group insists that we
can explain all things (eventually) without recourse to the supernatural,
and the other group insists that the ultimate questions have supernatural
answers, we will forever talk *past* each other.
     Fourth, creationism is denigrated because there are a few extremists
(like geocentrists) among the ranks.  Is not every movement cursed by its
zealots who, in substituting force for finesse or scenario for scientific
method, do more harm than good for their cause?  It is unfair to caricature
an entire movement from such out-wingers.
     Fifth, I think it would be impossible for anyone to approach the
subject of origins with a completely unbiased mind, knowledgeably weigh all
evidence, and then announce his conclusion.  The impossible part is the
unbiased mind.  We arrive at intellectual maturity already biased by our
upbringing.  This is why if anyone converts from creation to evolution or
vice-versa, it is always preceded by a philosophical conversion.  It would
be interesting to hear from any who have experienced such conversion and
what the process was that precipitated it.
     Sixth, is not evolution based entirely on circumstantial evidence and
does not circumstantial evidence make a weak case?  The fact that we can
arrange things in categories of similarity doesn't, of itself, prove
descendency relationships.  If God did create all creatures, an amoeba would
still be most unlike man and chimpanzees most like man.
     Seventh, creationists are frequently accused of misquoting, quoting out
of context, and misrepresenting evolutionist writers.  Certainly zealous
carelessness may unfortunately and occasionally occur in this area and is
not excusable.  But the intent is normally to show from the writings of the
evolutionists themselves that evolution is not a monolith of absolute
verity, but, as with any other search for truth, is fraught with dead ends,
contradictions, unanswered questions, anomalies, expectation-slanted
results, and ever-zealous extrapolations.  As the weaknesses of the
creationist argument are so mercilessly probed, is it not legitimate,
expected and proper for creationists to expose the weaknesses of
evolutionism, especially when they are recognized by its own adherents?
     Finally, is not the most telling argument for creation and against
evolution the simple logical statement:  For every effect, there must be a
greater cause.  This would seem to relegate spontaneous upward evolution to
the realm of logical and physical impossibility.


                                      David L. Kipp

send mail "care of":   (decvax, seismo)!rochester!ritcv!husky!jsm