Jim's Mailings

EVOLUTION AND

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design (Creation)

And so the battle rages, proponents of creationism presume they have an absolute answer to the beginnings of “The World.” While, evolutionists have a relativist view, in that they don’t know how “The World” began but explain most of what is interesting, by asserting that what we see can be regarded as a replacement of what used to be on earth. As an example, mammals replaced dinosaurs. The word ‘create’ suggests a prime mover who goes about to initiate events and items using a poorly understood process which is now labeled “Intelligent Design.” The evolutionists took a word “evolve” which means to turn around such as when twin scrolls are turned, one winding up and the other winding out. The viewer is witness only to that part of the scroll which happens to be viewable. The parts earlier, or later, are subject to speculation based upon what can be viewed, and the process, evolution.
Any attempts of a present day individual to describe accurately the events which actually occurred at some ancient time can be speculated upon, but as no one actually witnessed these happenings, accounts have to be labeled preposterous, lacking any substantive evidence to the contrary. St. John, in his gospel starts out with “In the beginning was the Word. And that just about sums it up. His word on the subject grants him the position of being the “Author.” That is, unless someone comes up with another authortarian figure who can arguably dispute his “word.” The former happens to be an absolutitist’s WORD, and evolutionists can only explain that tolerable accounts can be rendered; and that, while not replacing St. John, can certainly add their view, and evidence to the record of the scrolls.
The paragraph below is a view expressed by Neil Greenspan in today’s newspaper opinion columns, and I think his voice can be added to the record, in that he ventures into moral suppositions which use the absolutist and relativist polar positions of viewing today’s situation.
NEIL GREENSPAN (PD 4/27/05)
D
ebate on social and political issues is dominated by dichotomies. News stories and columns on pol¬icy options revolve around the tension be¬tween Democrats and Republicans, con¬servatives and liberals, blue states and red states, religious and secular. For example, discussion of the predicament of Terri Schiavo was dominated by two diametri¬cally opposed positions.
Why are such clear-cut divisions so common?
No single factor can explain the opinion gap, but one factor is the tendency of peo¬ple to believe in moral absolutes. Consider the ongoing debates about abortion, the end of life and the medical use of em¬bryonic stem cells.
The members of one camp emphasize their absolute commitment to the preser¬vation of life. In contrast, the members of the opposing camp emphasize other val¬ues, such as personal autonomy — the right of a competent individual to reach decisions of personal and family impor¬tance free of interference from govern¬ment or others outside a small, relevant circle. Ironically, this latter perspective, frequently regarded as liberal in this con¬text, is, in most other circumstances seen as a fundamentally conservative notion.
Neil is a professor of pathology at Case Western Reserve University.
More can be found at
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/othercolumns/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1114594502272151.xml

posted by James E. Opfell @ 5:45 PM