ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

 
	It appears to me that if I understand B it makes sense. There can be a coordination between both Darwinism (evolution) and creationalism; Actually the Bible does believe in evolution within the species. and is it possible that one can believe a creator started evolution and then one can still adapt all the laws of Darwinism. The only difficult one is understanding the missing link which has plagued scientists since the days of the Scopes Monkey Trial and since Darwin consumated the theory. 
in my country of France, evolution is widely accepted as we are considered a more secular and scientific nation. 
also a statement was made that science is random. at times, like statistics and in certain sample studies one can study random samples but science is not always random. science can be very methodical and very logical.
Edith


> De: Ian Russell <[log in to unmask]>
> A: [log in to unmask]
> Objet: Re: Evolution under siege internationally too?
> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:22:04 +0100

> ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
> Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
> *****************************************************************************
> 
> At 01:02 09/06/2005, Amanda Chesworth wrote:
> 
> >What I think concerns me the most, however, is when I see scientists just
> >adding fuel to the flame by not recognizing the twists in logic, the
> >invented arguments (like micro and macro evolution), the great haze of
> >confusion spread by misinformation.
> 
> At 22:59 08/06/2005, William Katzman wrote:
> 
> >I have read part of one anti-evolution book state that there is a conflict
> >between religion and evolution, precisely because evolution says that the
> >process of natural selection and that of mutations is RANDOM.  Thus the book
> >argued that people who believe that the process is random can't believe that
> >God has any hand in any of it or ever did, and therefore don't believe in
> >God.
> 
> "No-chance-ism", in my experience, seems to be the principal root of 
> militant creationism, especially the Intelligent Design variety.
> 
> And Amanda is right. There seems little headway against the endless flow of 
> theoretical objections to evolution, because they are emotionally rooted in 
> something else. A major cause of creationist militancy is "no-chance-ism".
> 
> However, you could try this:
> 
> 1. By definition, Darwinism = Chance
> 
> 2. By definition, Intelligent Design = The Hand of God
> 
> 3. According to traditional Christian theology, Chance = The Hand of God
> 
> 4. Therefore, logically, seen ONLY from the viewpoint of traditional 
> Christian theology, Darwinism = Intelligent Design = The Hand of God
> 
> 5. Seen from the scientific viewpoint, even for the many scientists who are 
> Christians, chance is unpredictable chance. It has to be viewed like this. 
> It is how science works. This is what science is. And because of this 
> self-imposed limitation, science is not qualified to comment on the 
> theological viewpoint.
> 
> This only applies if the "Hand of God" operates invisibly within the laws 
> of probability (science is only able to make non-specific, statistical 
> predictions about coin-tosses or quantum events). Because of course 
> Darwinism MUST be based on observable randomness. So 'chance' has entirely 
> different meanings theologically and scientifically.
> 
> I find this approach works pretty well, depending very much on how gently 
> it is presented. Line 3 is the sticking point for most militant 
> creationists, who show a distinct deist tendency to conceive of a limited 
> god who periodically "intervenes" (they use this word a lot) by breaking 
> through natural processes and chance events he is otherwise powerless to 
> control. Line 4 looks equally outrageous from either viewpoint, until the 
> logically separate nature of the viewpoints is digested. (NOMA again.)
> 
> So there seem to be two lines of attack:
> 
> A. We can insist that militant creationists cease to believe in their 
> Creator, as a necessary pre-condition of shutting-up about evolution.
> 
> or
> 
> B. Whatever our personal beliefs, we could ask them, with careful respect, 
> to consider the implications of a bigger Creator and Sustainer than they 
> have previously imagined, ruling over 'natural' phenomena and working 
> within his own laws of  'chance'.
> 
> If Dawinism is your religion, go for A. If you want results, I personally 
> recommend B.
> 
> 
> [log in to unmask] * <a href=http://www.interactives.co.uk>http://www.interactives.co.uk</a>*
> Give people facts and you feed their minds for an hour.
> Awaken curiosity and they feed their own minds for a lifetime.
> *
> Ian Russell  
> 
> ***********************************************************************
> More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
> Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at <a href=http://www.astc.org.>http://www.astc.org.</a>To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
> message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
> [log in to unmask]

Protek-on: CaraMail met en oeuvre un nouveau Concept de Sécurité Globale - www.caramail.com

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]