Re: Creationism in Minnesota

["joseph p. bottini" <jpbottini@adelphia.net>]

  Scott
  Good discourse.
  I do not, nor do the folks at AIG believe in ID as
  an explanation.

  I agree with you about the veiled approach to this topic
  taken by many "Christian" leaders and churches.  Forgive them,
  as they try to be all things to all people.  I much prefer those
  who are willing to state their views without smoke.

  Many of my good friends in the teaching profession
  (an extremely liberal group if I may
  group them) hold an evolutionist belief.  They are good teachers
  who have the "normal" teacher education view.  As I am taught,
  I will believe; never to change unless I seek study.  AND most
  teachers are too busy for an in-depth study of this sort.

  Right you are, replication of Creationist view is impoossible.
  So, likewise, is the view of Evolution.
  The debate goes on.

  I agree that fairness is not part of proven scientific facts.
  Fairness ought to, however, play a role in science approach and research.

  I have been reading about atheistic scientists who have sought to disprove
  Biblical truths for years (I am 70 this year) and the majority have
  become believers and the others have not been able to show even one
  flaw in this Book.

  Much of the reason for many atheistic scientists staying away from
researching
  the Bible is fear that they may have to adjust their long held position of
it
  being a "bunch of dogmatic bunk."  There is a lot of historical evidence
and
  science in this book.

  I know it is hard to believe that this story is either a truth of unknown
proportions
  which man can't explain or a huge centuries old hoax.
  Each is to decide for oneself but no one should make that decision with
out
  investigating for oneself.  I have, and I am satisfied with my decision.
  There is a Creator and the Bible has to be His Word is my opinion at this
time.

  But, what do I know?  I am just the average man-in-the-strteet with five
years of
  college study and many more years of personal education through extensive
reading.

  I hope I didn't harm any of my thousands of students with my average
brain.
  With all of the awards and nominations to Who's Who Among America's
Teachers
  as well as other prestigous recognitions in tow, I think I helped a few
"kids" a little.
  Third place in  DAR History Teacher of the Year in New York State was for
much
  effort and interest in teaching "socail studies" and American History;
using more
  than the textbook.

  Oh, I still get calls and notes from former students of 30 years ago.
  They still fondly remember this old average man-in-the-street guy.

  I was also stupid enough to serve in the military when I was called back
in the day
  when there was a draft and almost everyone served.

  Thanks for the stimulation.
  Joe Bo

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "Scott Hays" <shays@telis.org>
  To: <arn-l@interversity.org>
  Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:05 AM
  Subject: Re: [arn-l] Creationism in Minnesota


  > Joseph Bottini writes:
  >
  > "Your statement that neither creationsim nor ID are generally accepted
  > among scientists . . is incorect.   Unfortunately, most evolutionists
  > refuse to read anything contrary to their view and thereby miss all the
  > possible information out there indicating a possibility of something
other
  > than "mush to man" theory.  Log onto AIG network at ... "
  >
  > "Answers in Genesis" sort of illustrates the source of the ID argument,
  > doesn't it?  Intelligent Design theory, regardless of protestations to
the
  > contrary, is biblical creationism in sheep's clothing.  Sure there are
  > questions about evolution ... there are LOTS of them.  Some of the
hardest
  > questions are asked by scientists, not by God-fearing "scientists" who
  > already know all the answers because they have been revealed.  Science
is
  > not about "revelation", revealed Truth, or even Ultimate Causes.  All of
  > those "scientists" at ID can certainly ask their questions, and their
  > questions are certainly worthy of exploration in the world of science --
  > but NOT with the purpose of refuting an explanation, nor with the
purpose
  > of disguising an unstated "answer".  That is not how science works, and
to
  > pretend it is is to act nonscientifically.
  >
  > But this discussion is too difficult for the average "man-in-the-street"
to
  > comprehend, since scientific literacy is not exactly a forte of the
people
  > of this nation.  Which is precisely what adherents of ID hope for ...
like
  > a president counting on essentially uncritical support for a war by
  > manipulating the truth (because the truth is either unprovable or beyond
  > the ability of most people to have the patience to read in its
entirety) --
  > whether the truth be in who REALLY sank a particlar boat or in whether
or
  > not WMDs or al-Quida really reside within the presidential walls of a
  > nefarious (and useful) dictator (how many different ways did we "use"
  > Saddam Hussein, by the way?) ... people (in general) and the American
  > public (in particular) are not going to sit around while a bunch of
  > eggheads try to explain complex bodies of knowledge in a way that can be
  > easily understood.  "Hey," says Jo(seph) Citizen, "It's 'fair' to hear
both
  > sides of the story"
  >
  > Science is not "fair", Joseph.  It is not something that is agreed to
  > because it yields the "best possible good" (that it yields the "best
  > possible good" is often open to debate).  And science is not a body of
  > knowledge in which the Ultimate Answer (*42) is already known.
  >
  > In fact, for ID to have any credibility in the world of science, it is
not
  > enough to merely ask questions.  I await the day that these "scientists"
  > provide persuasive and replicable evidence that creation is the work of
a
  > Designer.
  >
  > Finally, you claim that "evolutionists refuse to read anything contrary
to
  > their point of view."  How broad a brush to you wish to smear the world
of
  > science?  Do ALL "evolutionists" refuse to read things that contradict
  > their world view?  Or is it only "some" evolutionists who refuse to read
  > the work of Mr. Wells?
  >
  > I have to admire the brains behind ID.  They are very clever.  Every
  > effort, in the past, to impose the belief system of a minority on the
rest
  > of us has failed.  But they keep trying.  And they keep refining their
  > methods.  They have hit upon a pretty potent one this time around.  It's
  > hard to fight the "fairness" argument, especially when it is so broad as
to
  > suggest that "all" of science is open to question, when it is really
only
  > one part of science that they want to call into question.  The ironic
part
  > of this is that this is exactly how science works -- if credible
questions
  > are asked, or if new evidence presents itself, science adjusts.  This
  > means, at base, that the questions asked by ID scientists are not
credible
  > (no matter how logical they sound), or else they would be rocking the
world
  > of science
  >
  > Scott Hays
  >
  >
  >
  >