Subject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <30151@ursa.bear.com>, halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>In article <C5snCL.J8o@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>
>>Evolution, as I have said before, is theory _and_ fact.  It is exactly
>>the same amount of each as the existence of atoms and the existence of
>>gravity.  If you accept the existence of atoms and gravity as fact,
>>then you should also accept the existence of evolution as fact.
>>
>>-- 
>>--Andy
>
>I don't accept atoms or gravity as fact either.  They are extremely useful
>mathematical models to describe physical observations we can make.
>Other posters have aptly explained the atomic model.  Gravity, too, is
>very much a theory; no gravity waves have even been detected, but we
>have a very useful model that describes much of the behavior on
>objects by this thing we _call_ gravity.  Gravity, however, is _not_ 
>a fact.  It is a theoretical model used to talk about how objects 
>behave in our physical environment.  Newton thought gravity was a
>simple vector force; Einstein a wave. Both are very useful models that 
>have no religious overtones or requirements of faith, unless of course you 
>want to demand that it is a factual physical entity described exactly 
>the way the theory now formulated talks about it.  That takes a great 
>leap of faith, which, of course, is what religion takes.  Evolution
>is no different.
>
>-- 
> jim halat         halat@bear.com     

Are you serious?!!!  Here's an exercise next time you are in the barnyard. 
Take *your* model and hold it directly above a fresh cowpie.  Then release the
model.  You will observe that on its own *your* model will assume a trajectory
earthward and come to rest exactly where it belongs.  Watch out for splatters,
particularly if you are wearing shorts when you perform this experiment.

Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota
