Subject: Kansas Action
Date: Aug 11 20:29:17 1999
From: Kelly Cassidy - lostriver at seanet.com


This point is, perhaps, not entirely relevant to the discussion, but it's
a pet peeve of mine when the topic comes up. Evolution is not a religion or
an outgrowth of a religion, therefore, it's not something one "believes in."
I don't have any religious or quasi-religious beliefs, but I don't "believe
in" evolution either. I don't make offerings to an icon of Charles Darwin
nor do I celebrate St. Mendel's day by cooking up a big batch of peas.

I believe (subtle difference between "believe" and "believe in") that the
preponderance of scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution via
natural selection as the most probable theory to explain life on earth. One
of the major tenets of science is that, if new evidence or a better theory
comes along, then the prevailing paradigms change. Religious beliefs allow
for no change, regardless of the evidence.

Some creationists argue that neither creationism nor evolution can be
proved, so teach both. I would ask: Which version of creationism would you
teach? The Judeo-Christian one? Greek myths? Whatever the Hindus believe?
The multiple Native American versions? Or do you teach every one of them as
being equally probable? It's a great idea to teach all of those beliefs in
a class on religion, but in a class on science, you ought to teach what most
scientists believe at the time AND teach that no scientific belief is
immutable. Unlike birds, which have mutable genes. (There's the bird
reference.)

Kelly Cassidy
Starling lover AND Godless atheist
Seattle