From: "Gary Britt" 

I don't think I would support "creationist" materials in schools.
 I'd have to see them to know for sure.  That's different from
acknowledging in a simple sentence that evolution of modern man from
non-living materials over millions of years is a theory that can not be
proven by direct observation.

Algorithmic process?  Hypotheses?  These are working assumptions.
Assumptions and theories are attempts to explain that which can not be
confirmed via direct observation.  Things that can't be directly observed
require some amount of *faith* or *belief* of one or more unobserved events
having happened.  That is *faith*.  Its just not *faith* in God.

Gary

"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:4378a712{at}w3.nls.net...
> There is plenty of observation of one species becoming another. You just
> have to look.
>
> There's an argument for evolution, it's an algorithmic process that can be
> abstractly proven. There is then much evidence for the actual effects in
the
> natural world. You're making the classic mistake of thinking 'that seems a
> bit unlikely, I'll leap direct to supernature' when you have no considered
> basis for 'unlikely'.
>
> The Dover trial is surely well known? A school board mandated some
reference
> to ID in science lessons and bought a bunch of creationist literature for
> students to 'consult'. Some parents sued. See http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/
> for transcripts and other materials.
>
> Paul
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:43789a6f{at}w3.nls.net...
> > There is no direct observation of one species becoming another species.
> > There is plenty of direct observation of intra-species differentiation,
> > but
> > none on trans-species evolution.  Trans-species evolution is argued to
be
> > implied from some fossil observations, but has to be taken on *faith*.
> > Even
> > more *faith* is required to believe that something not alive became
> > something that was alive, and then through an unobserved and not even
> > implied by other observations that first something evolved through
10000's
> > of links of trans species evolution into modern man.  That is a whole
lot
> > of
> > *faith* that is required for evolution.  I'm not saying evolution isn't
> > real, just that it takes a whole lot of *faith* and not *science* to
> > believe
> > in it.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with the Dover trial to which you refer.
> >
> > Gary
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5