Kirt:
>>I am usually bored by the debat--but your summary and detail of the
>>subject was
>>riviting.

Peter:
>First Stefan, now you. ;-) I think that "bored" is a poor choice of words
>as it might be construed as an expression of arrogance and elitism.

Ha! Well, "bored" is still an accurate depiction of my POV--at least as it
is played out in the letters to the editor. If seeing the same tired
misinformation  touted as support for creationism, and getting mighty tired
of it, makes me arrogant and elitist in some eyes, then so be it...

>I would  be surprised if not a great number of subscribers of this list believe that
>evolution is an insufficient explanation for the creation & development of
>life on this planet, and I hope that they despite Ward's impressive
>documentation will take this opportunity to express their sentiments.

I _would_ be surprised. Yet, there are many intelligent folks who
contirbute here (and, presumably, lurk here) and perhaps some will share
their anti-evolution sentiments.

As Ward gets into in his posts, there need be no conflict at all between
evolutionists and creationists. Science has little to say about why the
universe is here or who created it or where it came from. Basically science
says, "The universe started from nothing at all for no good reason at all."
Hardly satisfying. That there exists _anything_ is proof of some sort of
creation, some unmoved mover, motion-setter, dice-roller, or God. Which, of
course, leads to the unanswerable question of where God came from. Plenty
of mystery, plenty of logical paradoxes, to go around. Science has not
removed the "need" or usefulness of religious explanations.

Religion and science may be two sides of the same coin--the coin which
tries to provide us with answers and explanations to the big questions. Our
brain evolved to ability to think in a variety of ways, both in religious
symbolism and morality, and the scientific method. The debate, however,
perhaps shows more about another "natural" inclination of human
intelligence: the tendancy to fractionalize and jockey for position, and
unfortunately see the other side as an enemy to be defeated--even when they
are not stealing our food, but only thinking different thoughts.

So...having read enough about evolution and the evo-creat debate to have
thoroughly decided which explains the proliferation of life (and perhaps
even the origin of life from non-life) best, I am still left with the
reality that I am part of creation, that I am thrilled that that is so, and
that I owe some sort of debt to the whole system. For me I pay that debt by
being as honestly _me_ as I can--which includes seeing that evolution is
the best explanation--indeed, the most beautiful explanation--for the
proliferation of life on Earth. It is a big part of the answers to the
questions of where I come from, how I am, and what being the most _me_ I
can be is.

And mostly, that all this is a personal view--my personal view--and that
others will have differing views. Individual variety in animals is part and
parcel of the mechanisms of natural selection and for me, leads to a degree
of tolerance. On the other hand, my views lead me to find intolerance and a
lack of respect for individual differences/diversity to be worth standing
up to when they lead so obviously to misery--as we see with dietary regimes
which ignore evolutionary reality.

It is all well and good to doubt that evolution satifactorily explains life
on Earth--indeed, science is based on doubt. But using such doubt as an
intellectual freedom to ignore reality is unbecoming. Considering the
example of  the latter which inspired Ward to undertake the work involved
in his post(s), I still stand firm that the fallacies used to bash
evolution are boring--they are repeated ad nauseum though they are
false-to-facts. No matter how logical Ward's post(s) are, no matter how
well-researched, there will be folks who dismiss it all and cling to their
creationist explanations and continue to spout the same fallacies which
Ward did so well at demonstrating the utter weaknesses of. _That_ is boring
year in and year out. Ward's posts, however, were so succint and
well-written that they were anything BUT boring.

Cheers,
Kirt
[log in to unmask]