Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site azure.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!teklds!azure!chrisa
From: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: A new voice.
Message-ID: <300@azure.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 00:40:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: azure.300
Posted: Wed Jul  3 00:40:50 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 28-Jun-85 01:38:56 EDT
References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 97
Summary: 

In article <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>	Any evidence against Evolution is evidence for Creation and vice
>	versa. This point is discussed in depth by the notable evolutionist
>	scholar, Douglas J. Futuyma.
>
>	"Science On Trial", chapter 11, page 1   "Creation and Evolution,
>	between the two, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin
>	of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully
>	developed or they did not! If they did not, they must have developed
>	from some preexisting species by some process of modification."
>
>	If you find this difficult to accept, please state the alternative
>	to Creation/Evolution!

First of all, Evolution isn't just one theory.  It's a large collection
of theories all of which are based on a central hypothesis (that life evolved
from lower life forms by means of mutation and natural selection).  The 
point at which these theories disagree with each other is when they try to 
pinpoint the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection are, and then try to
figure out in what way did they affect the evolution of life on earth (ie we 
know the ingredients, now how do we mix them?).  The supposed proofs against 
evolution that have been batted about in this newsgroup seem to dwell on how 
each theory presents the mechanisms, but they never actually assault the 
central hypothesis itself.  Someone may say that some evidence shows that such 
and such theory about how life evolved is wrong, but that does not mean that 
life didn't evolve.

>
>	But since you asked for evidence for Creation, I will just give
>	you Kukuk/Brown's latest evidence which is similar to a past posting
>	of mine.
>
>	    The First Law of  Thermodynamics  states  that  the  total
>            amount  of energy in the universe, or in any isolated part
>            of it, remains constant. This  law  states  that  although
>            energy (or its mass equivalent) can change form, it is not
>            now being created or destroyed. Countless experiments have
>            verified  this.  A  corollary  of  the  First  Law is that
>            natural  processes  cannot  create  energy.  Consequently,
>            energy  must  have  been  created  by some agency or power
>            outside of and independent of the natural universe.
>
>	    If  the  entire  universe  is  an  isolated  system,  then
>            according  to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the energy
>            in the universe that is  available  for  useful  work  has
>            always  been  decreasing.  But as one goes back further in
>            time, the amount of energy available for useful work would
>            eventually  exceed  the total energy in the universe that,
>            according to the  First  Law  of  Thermodynamics,  remains
>            constant.  This  is an impossible condition.  It therefore
>            implies that the universe had a beginning.
>	    [END

Big deal, so fifteen(?) billion years ago there was a big bang, how does
this prove creation?

>	    I was flamed for saying that design is evidence of a designer.
>	    The replies were filled with the idea that design is a totally
>	    subjective description and all existance could just as easily
>	    be attributed to chance and natural processes.
>
>	    I did not reply to those arguments, but I believe that now is
>	    the time to do so. Sure, design is subjective. But subjectivity
>	    is not akin to irrational. I can't believe that a scientist
>	    who prides himself in being rational, intelligent, and
>	    objective can look at a world that behaves according to certain
>	    laws of nature and mathematics, at a race of individuals who
>	    can reason, learn, experience a myriad of emotions and argue
>	    that all of this can just as reasonably be explained by chance.

Perhaps you just have a homocentric viewpoint.  Somehow, perhaps because
you yourself are human, you find it difficult to believe that humans are not
inherently more important then the rest of "creation".  Therefore you find
it difficult to understand those who say differently.  On the other hand,
the evolutionists may be uncomfortable with the idea that humans are more 
important then the rest of the universe, because logic seems to imply that
we have no more significance to the scheme of things then a housefly.

>
>	    And, in light of this, you have the gall to ask for a reason
>	    to believe in Creation. Please, Derrick, give me one reason
>	    to believe in Evolution. Be careful now. Don't give me any
>	    subjective answers like commonality of species which can either
>	    imply common ancestor or common design. Give me a real solid
>	    concrete reason to believe that you and I are accidents and
>	    serve no real purpose.

I can give my own personal reason for believing in evolution over creation
(that is creation as presented by the creationists).

It makes sense.

Note that this is a purely personal opinion having no scientific basis, but
when it comes to matters like this that strike so deep at the heart of 
existance itself, all one really has *is* personal opinion.

Chris Andersen