A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Once the Creationists acknowledge and explain fossil evidence I might
listen to them. Until such time, it is a fairy tale. The Evolutionists
at least have a plausible explanation.

Explain then, how it is that there are no as-yet proven sub-species links
between fossil record iterations of similar creatures, much less entirely
different species?

One can say that eohippus is the progenitor of the horse because of gross
similarities, but one cannot show how eohippus became horse through an
unbroken line of incremental evolutionary change in the fossil record. How
did the three toes become one hoof, and where are the intervening
proto-horses that demonstrate the incremental change?

While biblical Creationists of strict belief may actually subscribe to the
"God created heaven and earth in seven days" dogma, creationism as a
scientific theory is somewhat more flexible, both in process and timeline.

There are interesting facts of physics, such as the properties of freezing
water, that some believe are so unlikely to have occurred by random chance,
statistically speaking, particularly when combined with other, equally
unlikely physical properties of matter, that it is mathematically impossible
(or at least extremely improbable) that there is NOT some "intelligent
design" at work.

Whether or not God is the agent, and whether or not He popped everything
into existence during a long workweek is less important than examining the
inconsistencies found in physics and history that seem to defy random chance
as the organizing force of nature.

Teaching children about this disparity of thought is hardly propagandizing
them with "fairly tales." It's merely introducing them to other arguments
and teaching them to think critically by including *all* possible theses,
rather than excluding those that seem at first blush to be improbable.

Given the statistical unlikelyhood of life arising in the Universe by random
chance, theories of intelligent design certainly deserve discussion at
least.

And even if creationism is simply wrong, nothing is gained by censoring
mention of it. In fact, I argue that the very best way to destroy myths is
to hold them up to the withering light of reason. You can't do that if you
refuse to even mention the subject. That's as small-minded as a theocracy
that censors evidence that the earth revolves around the sun.

More information is never a bad thing, particularly for children who are
learning how to reason.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser