How so? I have always thought that creation beliefs based on control and
direction by a being generally undefined, and evidence of
evolution, a random process driven by selection, were somewhat conflicting.
> >I've never understood those who insist there must be a barbed wire fence
> >between people who have the slightest inkling of a belief in religion, a
> >Creator, a God or gods, and people involved in science and scientific
> >research, I think you sell both sides short by erecting such artificial
> >barriers. I've never assumed you have to be an atheist or at least an
> >agnostic to be a competent scientist, I hope you don't.
I have never assumed this either and religious people I am sure make
excellent scientists and are perfectly capable of having their work
and beliefs coexist. Even molecular biologists I think could pursue their
careers without questioning their own beliefs. However I fail to see how
a tertiary educated biologist or ecologist can reconcile a belief in creation
with the body of scientific evidence, that is growing daily, which
supports neoDarwinistic thought. Evolution is accepted by the majority
of biologists, from whose perspective I speak, as no longer a theory.
> >The fact that Carnivorous Plants exist proves there's a God, end of
> >discussion! :-)
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Demetrios
>I couldn't agree more! I'm a college educated professional working in
>the medical field. Everything in nature testifies to the fact that
>there is a Creator. God does exist. :)
>There is no shred of evidence that evolution exist. Only
>unsubstantiated theorys. Infact all the evidence proves that evolution
>could never take place. Anyone ever hear of the 2nd Law of
>Thermodynamics (The Law of Entropy)? :)
>Reeter
>San Diego, CA
All the evidence?? I could barely bring myself to reply to these
comments as they are constantly trotted out as contrary points to
evolution and I have heard them so often that I have answers rehearsed.
I have never heard one creationist present any hard evidence in support
of this event and whenever I confront these people they immediately go
on the offensive and rather than supporting their own arguement
immediately attack evolutionary theory rather than the concrete evidence
which supports it. I for one would be perfectly willing to accept
creationism if somebody could present to me some evidence other than the
line "something exists therefore it was made by something or someone"
There are many strains of evidence which support evolution, far too many
to quote here but I suggest that journals such as "Trends In Ecology and
Evolution" would be a good starting point if anyone is interested in
catching up on the latest info. As far as I know there is no hard
evidence or law which directly contradicts the theory of evolution. As
for the second law of Thermodynamics......This is constantly quoted out
of context (Apologies Reeter but you appear to have been misinformed).
The second law of classical thermodynamics only applies to closed
systems those that do not interact with their surroundings in terms of
energy or matter. By contrast living systems are open systems which
interact in both ways with their surroundings and energy constantly
enters the system from the sun.
My original email was not designed to inflame religiour rhetoric from
other members of the listserve. However I am not amazed at the response
this message has drawn. I think when it comes to this subject I can
only attempt to inform and educate and for those that choose to
ignore the evidence I can only agree to disagree. As indicated
by the size of this email and not so aware that I am going away for
a week, this will be my final posting on this topic. Non CP
related theology and scientific philosophy is
not something I wish to take up my, or other subscribers time with
:-) having just covered it during part of my honours year at uni.
Cheers
Martin Henery
School of Biological Sciences
Macquarie University, Sydney.