|
This discussion about creationism surprises me,
and, to be honest, irritates me terribly. Let the so-called 'christians' believe
what they believe, as found in a volume full of fairy tales and let
us realistic people believe in isotopes and astrochronology. In long term
experience I have learned the only way to deal with such people: say that you
agree with them, and stop the discussion, bye bye.
Arie W. Janssen, Gozo, Malta
ariewjanssen@waldonet.net.mt
http://sites.waldonet.net.mt/ariewe/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'brighter than glass, and yet, as glass is,
brittle'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 2:54
AM
Subject: Re: paleonet GA-Evolution
Hello All,
I am new to paleonet and so I will just give myself a brief
introduction. My name is Amanda Bahls and I am a graduate student at
Indiana State University. I am currently working towards my Master's in
geology, with an emphasis in paleoceanography. I saw this article, as
well as Dr. Campbell's response to it, and had to respond, because I have
just finished reading an excellent book on just this type of problem.
"Rocks of Ages" by Stephen Jay Gould could not put this so-called
"controversy" between science and religion into better perspective. They
do not have to be integrated into a single, unified belief. They can
co-exist without incorporating one into the other. In fact, they should
not be taught as a single entity. Which religion would you choose to
integrate with science in order to teach a "creationist" point of view?
I'm sure that most would automatically reply that Christianity would be the
only answer. But how is that fair to those who aren't Christian?
We can take prayer out of schools, because we might offend those with other
religious beliefs, but we can teach what one particular dogma of faith says
happened in order for the earth (and ourselves) to come into existence,
and "water down" the findings of science because they make students think that
the Bible may not be a literal document? I guess that I just don't
understand the logic.
Amanda S. Bahls
Indiana State University
Department of Geography, Geology, and Anthropology
Science Building Room 159
Terre Haute, IN 47809
A
recently published book might be a useful reference in dealing with such
things: Miller, Keith (ed.). Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. It was
published by Eerdmans, but I believe the usual sources like Amazon carry it.
It discusses evolution in an explicitly Christian context while
maintaining scientific accuracy (e.g., holding that evolution appears to be
the best scientific explanation for biological origins). In fact, I would
argue that it provides a more Christian approach than the standard
purportedly Christian antievolutionary claims, as the latter generally
disregard the many Biblical passages that command truthfulness, quality
work, and a peacemaking attitude. (As a co-author of one chapter, my view
may not be entirely objective.)
Incidentally, I believe there is
currently an attempt to submit legislation favoring teaching alternative
views (broadly worded, but creationism and intelligent design are major
alternatives in mind of the proposer) here in Alabama, next door to Georgia.
Keep an eye on your legislators!
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept.
Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345
USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in
the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of
Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try
it!
|