On May 21, 2005, at 5:59 AM, Russell McMahon wrote:

> It is ***VITAL*** that a distinction is made between
>
> 1.    natural selection (Popperian treatable) and
>
> 2.    the generation of life as we know it from entirely inanimate 
> matter,
>  using the processes of natural selection, which is not treatable by
> Popeprian Science.
>
You *DO* understand that this is NOT the "evolution taught in schools" 
debate
as seen (or perhaps only perceived) in the good old USA.  Here, it's 
seen as
"man was uniquely created in the (Christian) God's image and isn't at 
all related
to lesser animals" on one side and ANY mention of "evolution" (lower 
case "e")
on the other.  "Creationist science" is viewed by the pro-evolution 
crowd as
more of an attempt to discredit science than as a serious alternative.  
And
that's assuming you've missed the further fringes...

I can interpret Russell's position as along the lines of "the leap of 
faith HERE
in Evolution (or the creation of the universe) is not all that much 
smaller or
less a leap of faith than that needed to assume the involvment of a 
sentient
Creator."  I can see that as making a fair amount of sense, but that's 
NOT
the usual argument when it comes to evolution in schools...

BillW

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist