To elaborate further on Deb's rational letter...

I took college biology from a creationist.  He handled his religious beliefs
very diplomatically.  He taught textbook evolution, and added the
mathematical improbability that life could have spontaneously generated
itself (something like 10 to the 27th power).  He suggested the
discrepancies between the timeline in the Bible and actual scientific
evidence are related to non-scientific time being kept or understood when
the Bible was written. Then he allowed us to decide or believe what we
wanted.  Like Deb said - there will never be scientific proof against
creationism until we are able to create life spontaneously by mixing a few
gases and other elements together in just the right way.......but along the
same line of reasoning - anyone who disputes the authenticity of
carbon-dating techniques should realize that by now if they were not
accurate someone would have proven them false.

Carol Riggles,
speaking as the daughter of a nuclear engineer who understands half-lifes,
and as a believer in God and evolution!


-----Original Message-----
From: Deb Fuller <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 1:54 PM
Subject: Creationism v. Evolution


>Okay people, I think the world at large is missing the point here.
>
>I think we can all agree that organisms change over time and adapt to their
environment, aka - evolve. This is a proven scientific FACT and can easily
be replicated with a number of experiments. I don't think anyone is
disputing that part of the evolution theory.
>
>But with all the BASIC science out there that we could teach and should
teach, I think hitting home the point that we are or are not decended from
protoplasmic globules of DNA or Austrilopithicus africanus is a bit useless.
Face it, on both sides of the argument there are holes, big truck-sized
holes that probably will never be proven no matter how much science is
involved.
>
>I also think that if you present one side of the arguement as fact or
fiction, you automatically alientate the other faction. This in turn will
immediately shut their minds to any other science you try and teach them.
>
>Thus, I think we need to ask ourselves it is more important to teach people
about science in general or specific theories? You can teach evolution
without going into the origins of man or life in general. And I think to the
average American, that information is much more valuable than getting people
to believe in one theory or another. I also think it will get more people
interested in science that might not even go near the subject because of a
strong belief one way or another on evolution.
>
>I'm not advocating withholding information, I just think that there is a
lot more valuable information out there that we can present. Leave the
origins of life to college biology or the church. We have people out there
that don't even know what DNA or natural selelction is.
>
>Deb Fuller
>
>=========================================================
>Important Subscriber Information:
>
>The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help"
(without the quotes).
>
>If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).
>

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).