One person (1) wrote:

Then Chris Ho-Stuart <> responded

As I have repeated any number of times, what the education system teaches, and is required to teach, is science. Evolution, even though you personally cannot accept it, is solidly and unambiguously the foundational scientific model of biology.

[1] From the science texts I have evolution has been stated as the means of upward progression of the species, but the 'proof' is assumed.

Sounds like something from about 200 years ago.

Whatever text it is, throw it away, and get something that reflects modern biology.

On the other hand, I confess that I am not not persuaded you have sufficient critical understanding of science texts to be able to substantiate that charge.

I would be curious to know what text you refer to, in order to check whether it really is as bad as you say.

You say above "from the science texts I have"... which sounds like they are texts you have at present in your possession. Is there any reason for not giving a title, author, and publication date? I'd really like to know, and you could give a title and author sufficient to identify the book without any real extra time and effort on your part.

A good text, suitable for an undergraduate course on the matter, would be "Evolutionary Biology" (1986) by D. Futuyma.

[1] Your own postings do not give the 'proof' I'd like to see IF EVOLUTION REALLY DID HAPPEN.

Correct. I have not focussed on giving proofs, and I have not made any serious effort here to give the empirical reasons that exist for the dominance of evolution in biology, an old earth in geology, or a vast and ancient universe in astronomy.

I have focussed mainly upon correcting errors and misconceptions. I have also tried to retain, to some extent, a focus upon matters more relevant to this newsgroup, which are concerned with Christian faith.

Specifically, I like to emphasize that portrayal of evolution, or geology, or astronomy, or anything else, as a denial of God is effectively a denial that God is involved in natural processes; a position fraught with theological problems. The truth is that these scientific fields are in conflict with biblical literalism; which is not the same thing at all.

However, since you ask for proof that evolution did happen, I can point you to the following "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/> This summary article gives an idea of various kinds of evidence which are brought to bear on the matter. It is a lot more than merely fossils.

On the other hand, fossil evidence is perhaps the easiest to comprehend for a non-biologist, so as just one example to focus upon, I choose whales, and my primary starting reference is "The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence" <http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/> This is a good example, because on the basis of non-fossil evidence, biologists had already made some predictions, and creationists had previously (back in the eighties) made much of the lack of transitionals to back up the biologist's expectations. From about the mid-nineties, mainly from finds in Pakistan, paleontologists have unearthed an excellent series of transitional fossils confirming the origins of whales from terrestrial ancestors, and also pinning down their relationships with other currently living creatures.

I will make one minor point in passing. One of the serious problems with a focus on creationism is that it tends to leave a student with the idea that evolution is a theory of origins.

This is rater seriously misleading. In fact, evolution is better seen as the foundational theory for biological structure; and a model for the constraints for living organisms. It is concerned with diversification and cumulative change over time from common ancestors; but ancestors are still living creatures.

If you read a good general biological text, you should find a discussion of evolution, and you should find that it is not focussed simply upon "what is the origins of this or that life form" but takes a more general focus on form and function in living things.

For example, in ancient times there are stories of such things as fire breathing dragons, and horses with wings, and many chimeras (a faun, half goat, half man). Evolution is the reason we know such things do not exist. For example -- a flying horse is not possible, as it is described in mythology, because the wing is an add-on; involving two new limbs, with the four legs remaining unchanged. Evolution, on the other hand, allows for the "flying fox" because the wing is actually utilizing the limbs already in place.

The ultimate origins of life are an active area of research, and evolution is able to lend useful insights, but modern evolutionary biology does not, and so far cannot by its very nature (being focused upon genetics), address the origins of prebiotic replicators.

[1] Those who disagree are said to be 'anti-science' when that would not be true of some of them - what % that would be I do not know. I can't do the reserach to find out. Creationists have to make their case in the scientific community first. Demanding back door access to science classes without this is futile. It won't happen, and rightly so. [1] But where Evolutionists have control they will not allow the 'freedoms' - (I'm using that term advisedly) - that Evolutionists have gained through infiltration. I am aware you would not agree with the use of the term 'infiltration' - however, I do believe that has happened, at times.

You are right -- I do not agree with the term. I also believe you cannot and have not identified any freedoms at all which you are not allowed.

Note that being able to set the school curriculum to your choice is not a freedom for anyone; unless you set up your own private school.

[1] When evolutionists think of communication systems, according to the information I have, they talk about evolution - from ape-like creatures to humans as a development of a small range of sounds to many words with variations due to semantics. Of course the development of English is not evolution in the scientific biological sense, and of course the development of English is evolution in the more general sense of cumulative change. What is this meant to show? [1] There are 'biological determinants of languages so that throughout the world all children gain language through a similar process, and in fact, at the babbling stage of speech about 9 months of age, through tape recordings it has been determined that children, irrespective of their ethnic origins, babble a wider range of sounds than in their first language vocabulary with the sounds being modified to those spoken by the parenatl group. Mimickery continues to a greater or lesser degree into early teenage or older years dependent on environmental circumstances. From that I would deduce that human speech is a God-given facility. However, I am aware you would attribute it to other causes or say it can be tested. And to say it is God-given doesn't fit the definition of 'science' - which it seems to me means 'if it can't be proved it is not true'.

As I have repeated many many times already, your final statement is untrue. The continued misrepresentations on such matters by creationists is a major contributing factor to the widely perceived enmity between religion and science.

The truth is that "if it can't be proved (that is, tested against empirical evidence) then science does not address it".

There are many Christians who are active in all fields of science, who attribute to God all of the natural world. As Ken has pointed out, one of the major founders of modern evolutionary theory, Theodosius Dobzhansky, was a devout (Russian Orthodox) Christian.

What you have shown above is that speech is an innate ability. That is as far as science or evidence takes you. You attribute to God the responsibility for such innate abilities. An atheist denies any role for God at all. The evidence does not discriminate. But the best an atheist can do with science is to explore and study the natural processes involved. If you consider that to be leaving God out of the picture, that is fine -- I find it comical how often atheists and creationists are effectively allies in the attempt to show that finding a role for natural processes is a disproof of God.

But science, in general, simply explores the natural processes and leaves unaddressed whether or not there is a God who is responsible for or who is working through such processes.

I'm an atheist myself. But I can't prove it empirically.

[1] I have received your e-mails and also those from Andrew Lamb - Information Officer for Answers in Genesis - which both you and he have sent me. I am having some problems with my computer equipment which means I can't go through the mass of information you both have sent me, and also the past postings this year.

[1] I will not be posting until I can have this corrected - not that I am 'chickening-out' - but, apart from the above, at present there is a circular argument. I'll leave it at that, for the present. Will post later.

No problem. I am happy to respond -- as I have done above -- when you decide to contribute, and you are welcome to take time off at any point to digest material supplied by Andrew and myself.

Best wishes -- Chris