lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (04/06/84)
As we don't get it enough from the media, there seem to be more on the
net perpet[ru]ating the idea that scientific creation is the same as
Biblical creation. IT ISN'T!
Scientific creation is a model (as is evolution - neither is a "theory")
for the interpretation of prehistoric data; it must seek its basis in
hard physical evidence. Biblical creation is a religious doctrine based
on the assumption of the Bible as truth; it is not science per se,
although scientific evidence may be found to corroborate it.
The Louisiana law does not permit the entrance of the Bible into the
classroom. The "Creator" is essentially a generic one, not necessarily
the Judeo-Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or [whatever] one. No moral
attributes are ascribed to the Creator.
[ihuxq!ken] "And the creationist time scale is in such complete
opposition to all of geology and astronomy that its proponents
are forced into the ludicrous argument that the speed of light
(and radioactivity ...) have been changing."
At least they are looking at testable hypotheses. But these "ludicrous"
ideas about overthrusts (hey, you don't need the faith of a mustard seed
to move a mountain - just add water and wait 50 million years! Further,
it won't leave any tracks! :-) and immediate rejection of evidence
because it goes against preconceived ideas - that's *not* science.
[erix!robert] "If creation really feel that they must have a law to make
people listen then they must be VERY unsure of their results."
Sure...like those lobbying for ERA, or to outlaw the death penalty, or
to wreck supply and demand by having "comparable worth" laws. Gimme a break.
--
The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
{decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPAken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (04/06/84)
--
My reply to Larry Bickford (it's not very long, and he quotes me)
is in net.origins, which is where this discussion belongs.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 06 Apr 84 [17 Germinal An CXCII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (04/07/84)
Larry Bickford says: >The Louisiana law does not permit the entrance of the Bible into the >classroom. The "Creator" is essentially a generic one, not necessarily >the Judeo-Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or [whatever] one. No moral >attributes are ascribed to the Creator. What right does the state of Louisiana have to legislate that a single creator had done the whole job. Fairness would require that the word "Creator" in the proposed Louisiana law should be replaced by "Creators or Creator". Specifying a creator in the singular form mutually excludes the participation of multiple creators in the creation enterprise. On the other hand, using the plural form "Creators" would treat all creators equally and fairly, thus, removing the discriminatory language from the proposed law. -- Yosi Hoshen Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312)-979-7321 Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (04/10/84)
> Specifying a creator in the singular form mutually excludes the participation > of multiple creators in the creation enterprise. On the other hand, using the > plural form "Creators" would treat all creators equally and fairly, thus, > removing the discriminatory language from the proposed law. Multiple creators haven't gotten past Occam's Razor. Common design has indicated a common designing agent. -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/11/84)
[]
Occam's Razor is a tool of the scientific method. The problem of
what to expose our precious children to is a political problem.
Occam's Razor has *NEVER* been considered as a reasonable political
tool. (Too rational)
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70}!hao!ward
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/11/84)
>>Specifying a creator in the singular form mutually excludes the participation >>of multiple creators in the creation enterprise. On the other hand, using the >>plural form "Creators" would treat all creators equally and fairly, thus, >>removing the discriminatory language from the proposed law. > Multiple creators haven't gotten past Occam's Razor. Common design has > indicated a common designing agent. ---Larry Bickford More likely if the universe was "designed" at all, it appears more likely that it was designed by committee... -- "An argument is an intellectual process. It isn't the automatic gainsaying of what the other person says." "... Can be." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rjhurdal@watmath.UUCP (David Canzi) (04/11/84)
Net.misc is meant for discussions that don't belong anywhere else. All discussions of creation vs. evolution belong in net.origins, therefore they do not belong in net.misc. KEEP THIS CRAP OUT OF NET.MISC!!!!
julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (04/12/84)
re multiple creators; There are versions which regard a fallen angel in one shape or another as a rival creator. The theme (generically) is quite widespread in myth systems. Julian Davies