creation of human kind
JP_STEPHENS at CLASSIC.MSN.COM
Wed Dec 23 22:17:49 UTC 1998
Dear Mr. Bannerjee
>The theories of evolution have much fewer questions unanswered than the
>"theories" of creation do. And unlike creationists, evolutionists do not
>pretend that they have all the answers.
>The creationist theory on the other hand is only a myth, but pro-creation
>philosophers (mostly status quo politicians and the religious right) clothe
>it in a quasi-scientific garb.
This is not true. Creation as the cause of mankind's appearance on earth has
been around a long time. If this has to be debunked I would need a much
worthier opponent than evolution.
>"Creationists for the most part are fundamentalist Christians (make it
>fundamentalists - PB) whose central premise is a literal interpretation of
>the Bible (make it Puranas or the Quran - PB) and a belief in its
>inerrancy. In adopting a literal interpretation of the Bible, they differ
>from nearly all other Christians and Jews (make it other Hindus or Muslims
>- PB). Scientists, many of whom are religious, have no wish to deny
>fundamentalists their own beliefs, but the creationists are determined to
>impose their views on others. In particular, they are lobbying to have
>science classes teach the ideas of: a sudden creation from nothing by God;
>a worldwide flood; a young Earth; and the separate ancestry of humans and
>apes.[...] And because they depend on supernatural intervention, not
>natural law, they are also unscientific.
I beg to disagree. I was born and brought up a Christian, but I have
questioned my religion many times and have always found the answers.
Believing in creation does not make me a fundamentalist. You would be
surprised at the number of scientists that find the theory of evolution
lacking in scientific evidence. I can give you quotes and books but am
unable to do at this time so since I am enroute to India on vacation. If you
want a list of renowned scientists that believe in creation, I can provide
you with one on my return.
There is no scientific evidence,
>or even an appeal from common sense or experience, to suport the
>creatinists' claims." [From Tim M. Berra, Evolutoin and the Myth of
>Creationism. Stanford University Press, 1990]\
Evolution is just an effort by man to find an answer, but it is not *the*
answer. If it is the answer, we should have no problem explaining the duck
billed platypus or similar plants and animals.
>Creationists also take advantage of the reluctance of the scientific
>community to get into raucous political fights. That's how Christian
>Council has become so powerful in USA, a country that has thousands of
>extremely intelligent scientists. The same logic could be applied to the
>situation in India or say, Pakistan or Iran.
Once again not true, since there are many in the scientific community that
find evolution scientifually and logically flawed.
More information about the INDOLOGY