I do think there is reason to be skeptical of blind evolution as the mechanism for the creation of life. Statistically it is incredibly unlikely; and as Fred Hoyle asserted it is as unlikely that a cell would be created from the primordial amino acids as a 747 airplane being created from a tornado going through a junkyard. This is not to say that I believe the earth was created in six literal days. But I do believe the evidence for intelligent design from some source stretching from the anthropic principle to life on earth is overwhelming. But I am not saying no evolution occurs. Evolution has also been used by scientists to explain the development of civilization from hunters gatherers to villages etc., ignoring the fact that some of the earliest Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations were much more sophisticated than later civilizations. The evolutionary rule of thumb is the ultimate cope out in trying to explain history. I think the current secular "monotheism" of evolution is just as stifling to progress as the church was in Galileo's day. In fact it was really the scientific establishment of the day based on the Greek science of Aristotle and Ptolemy that opposed Galileo not religious beliefs from the Bible. To limit discussions in school to only topics "enlightened atheists" believe are appropriate is just as wrong as a state religion. I think no topics regarding the creation of life should be off limits as long as they do not promotes a single religion including the religion of evolution. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kim Hyatt Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:41 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] science vs. religion Warning: The following is critical of President Bush. If you do disapprove, do not read on. News item (courtesy of Patrick Wiggins): Science Leader Says President Bush Confuses Science and Belief To the chagrin of scientists, President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design'' alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life. http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_050802_bush_design.html I think that scientists (professional and amateur alike) should speak out about this trend. Remember, there will likely be a bill introduced in Utah's next legislative session to require that Utah schools teach "intelligent design" alongside the theory of evolution. "Intelligent design" is the new catch phrase that proponents of creationism use to make this religious "theory" sound more scientific. I think of myself as a religious person, but I feel strongly that religionists should stop interfering with science. The Catholic Church used to do so and pursued that course to its logical end: the persecution, imprisonment and execution of scientists. Scientists don't pretend to instruct us about religion; unknowledgeable persons of faith shouldn't instruct us about science; politicians, including and especially Mr. Bush, shouldn't instruct us about either. I respect my friends (and those who are not my friends) who hold differing views. But, I believe that religion in any guise should only be taught in our homes and places of worship. I believe this to be a correct interpretation of the Constitution and I will oppose politicians and lobbyists such as the Eagle Forum who have said that they will work toward having intelligent design taught in public schools. This may open a barrel of snakes, but I think the persons of this group have a responsibility to protect science from interference from religionists. So, how do others feel? Kim _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com