allison@convexs.UUCP (09/12/85)
>> The poeple being taught in these public schools have a right to >> ALL the information concerning mankind on earth, and this definitely should >> include the concept of creationism. > That is fine, but if you are teaching the Christian creation myth, > then you should also teach the Shinto mythology, the Hindu mythology, the > American Indian mythology, etc. I see them all as equally valid. Christians, > by and large, do not, as they are asserting the supremacy of their mythology > over that of other cultures/religions. > -- > jcpatilla That is fine, but if you are teaching the evolution myth, then you should also teach the Shinto mythology, the Hindu mythology, the American Indian mythology, etc. I see them all as equally valid. Evolutionists, by and large, do not, as they are asserting the supremacy of their mythology over that of other cultures/religions. Don't try to tell me that evoltion is pure, unbiased science! I DARE you to study scientific creationism AS OBJECTIVELY AS YOU DO EVOLUTION. I think you'll be surprised. Brian Allison {allegra, ihnp4, uiucdcs, ctvax}!convex!allison Convex Computer Corp. Richardson, TX
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (09/17/85)
In article <8400002@convexs> allison@convexs.UUCP writes: >That is fine, but if you are teaching the evolution myth, then you >should also teach the Shinto mythology, the Hindu mythology, the >American Indian mythology, etc. I see them all as equally valid. >Evolutionists, by and large, do not, as they are asserting the supremacy >of their mythology over that of other cultures/religions. Don't try to >tell me that evoltion is pure, unbiased science! I DARE you to study >scientific creationism AS OBJECTIVELY AS YOU DO EVOLUTION. I think >you'll be surprised. When the Christian (et al) myths are supported with as much evidence as the evolution "myth", I'll take them more seriously (where's that Holy Grail when you need it?) I DARE you to subscribe to net.origins and WATCH CREATIONISM TORN TO SHREDS DAILY only to have it's proponents return with more, bogus, OFTEN CONTRADICTORY arguments. My favorite posting was the one where the fellow gave two "proofs" for creationism. Unfortunately, one required that the Earth be no less than 150,000 years old, while the other claimed that the Earth was only 5000 years old. This marvelous theory doesn't seem to do anybody any good. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "What? With her?" -Adam from _The_Book_of_Genesis_
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (09/18/85)
> cultures/religions. Don't try to tell me that evoltion is pure, unbiased > science! I DARE you to study scientific creationism AS OBJECTIVELY AS YOU DO > EVOLUTION. I think you'll be surprised. > > Brian Allison {allegra, ihnp4, uiucdcs, ctvax}!convex!allison > Convex Computer Corp. > Richardson, TX What about the myths of physics and electronics, equally unproveable, that allow us to communicate over USENET? Evolution is not 100% absolutely proven (nothing is), but it was arrived at by observing natural phenomena, formulating a theory, and repeatedly testing that theory using objective scientific experimental techniques. That is why it should be taught in biology class and why creationism should not. Creationism has never addressed scientific principles and never will, unless it wants to end up on a dusty bookshelf next to alchemy and flat world theories. ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.