dan@idis.UUCP (Dan Strick) (02/09/84)
A great deal of recent activity in the usenet creation/evolution debate consists of creationists shooting down proposed mechanisms by which life might have been generated spontaneously. The evolutionists have had their chance to explain how life developed on the Earth and have failed to prove their case conclusively. I think this discussion has been entirely one sided. The other viewpoint deserves to be heard. I now invite the creation *scientists* to describe, with the same completeness and reliability that they demand of the evolutionists, the detailed mechanisms and techniques that God used to create the World. Frankly, I have never been able to figure out how He did it in only six days and six nights. It would have taken me at least seven. Dan Strick mcnc!idis!dan decvax!idis!dan (Now I get to find out what Hell is like.)
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (02/24/84)
One thing that everybody keeps forgetting about the creationist theory is that it does not have to be proved. People believe it out of blind faith in something that, by definition, cannot be understood. The argu- ment should not be about whether the Creationist theory is right or wrong, but instead, it should be that creationist theory is based on a religious doctrine and is thus not a science. It is impossible to win an argument against a creationist on the former issue. All they have to say is, "God planned it that way" and the argument is over. However, creationist theory can not predict future events with *the same* :>) (or in most cases -- *any*) accuaracy as any of the physical sciences. Until creationism can successfully predict evolution, celestial occurrances and the like, all the physical scientists will believe it's a lot of crap. And they are right. After all what good is a theory that can only explain the past and rarely predicts the future. Just keep it out of the schools and in the church WHERE IT BELONGS!!! flamingly yours, jah* *oh yeah, this flame is not necessarily the opinion of my company, and no part should be associated as such.
dbkay@dartvax.UUCP (David B. Kay) (02/27/84)
[]
Although there are some creationist groups which insist on going
about creating non sequitors to bolster their dogmatism, I don't
think that ALL creationist groups are like that.
Ideally, the scientist has no bias, and no personal stake in
the matter under investigation. Great. But, after the
Humanist Manifesto, which put a great and dogmatic emphasis on
Darwinian macroevolution, I don't think that unbiased work
in evolution/creration is possible. The scientific community
operates (normally) on atheistic assumptions; the creationists
operrate on theistic assumptions.
This doesn't mean that the hypotheses that are created (sorry)
from theistic principles shouldn't undergo the same rigorous
testing that other hypotheses must bear. They also, on the same
thought, should not be thrown away immediately. Surely a humanist
will claim that a theistic assumtion set can't be proven; a
theist will similarly say the converse. The Bible is not
a textbook, but neither are the Humanist Manifestos. They
are simply assumption sets for creation of hypotheses.
I'm not a biologist (flunked bio classes because I can't
draw); I'm not in a position to say what the merits of
the creationist theory are. I do know, however, MACRO-
(as opposed to micro) evolution is not proven; we are still
dealing with a theory. All I ask is that an opposing
theory be subjected to the same standards that the commonly
held theory is.
I don't say this to excuse the dogmatists who insist that
theism is science, but to refute those who say all hypotheses
must be atheistic.
D.B. Kay
Dartmouth College
-Look on my works, oh ye mighty, and giggle!seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (02/28/84)
> People believe it out of blind faith in something that, > by definition, cannot be understood. "Blind faith" ? I don't think so. I don't believe in *anything* out of "blind faith", to do so would be rather stupid. Look at the evidence for both sides, make your choice of what to believe in, but don't accuse people who have chosen to believe differently than yourself of believing in "blind faith". Faith, like respect, is earned, not given blindly. > it should be that creationist theory is based on a religious > doctrine and is thus not a science. > However, creationist theory can not predict future events with > *the same* :>) (or in most cases -- *any*) accuaracy as any of > the physical sciences. Make up your mind. Either creationist theory is based on a religious doctrine *OR* it cannot predict future events, you can't have both. Are you claiming that creationism is based on the Christian Bible? If so, please note that the Christian Bible is 1/3 prophecy, that most of these prophecys have already come true, and that so far, they've never been wrong. > Until creationism can successfully predict evolution, Until evolution can successfully predict creation, > After all what good is a theory that can only explain >the past and rarely predicts the future. The "big bang" theory predicts the future? And as I said above, if you're equating creationism with Christianity, it *does* predict the future. -- _____ /_____\ Have you hugged your beagle today? /_______\ Snoopy |___| ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert