In the other thread . . .
TB:
"What's non-scientific about showing that:
1. All known examples of observed evolution, including that on rapid generational entities such as viruses and bacteria, do not demonstrate anything other than allelic variaiton or loss of function.
2. Life today and the fossil record show very few transtional forms.
3. Genomes are showing us that gene families, as well as anatomies, are mosaically spread throughout life.
There is absolutely nothing unscientific about the above except that you despise the connotations it carries."
ddg replied:
"Nothing unscientific here. However, alternate theories need to go through the proper scientific avenues (peer review, etc.)before they are adopted into a curriculum (I'm not saying yours have not, I don't know). A responsible school board will find out what what the mainstream scientific community thinks about the research and conclusions.
I don't think I've declared what I despise but I do need to clarify my position. I believe in a creator. For me, the bible is a spirtual guide as opposed to literal historical text or scientific manual.
I am comfortable, in general, with the position my particular Protestant denomination takes (Prebyterian Church USA).
"however, it is not necessary to understand the Genesis account as a scientific description of Creation."
"We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church."
EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE Primary Reference: GA Minutes 1969: 59-62
Denomination: PCUS CONCLUSION FROM THE STUDY
TB:
ddg, you wondered about peer-reviewing? The three points I mentioned above underpin most of YE-creationsm and are peer reveiwed in both the mainstream and creationist journals. Given those three facts I mentioned I simply don't understand why any Christian would want to trust evolutionary interpretations ahead of Scripture?
The same data can be interpreted as created kinds followed by evolution. This means that God did create man in his image, male and female, man separately from animals, dogs separately from cats. And we agree with Darwin that God did not seperately create all of the Galapogas finches. We love science but see no need to go for macroevolution.
That is YE-creationism, not the strawmen you hear about.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-13-2002]