gjphw@ihuxm.UUCP (Can you believe?: Patrick H. Wyant) (02/02/84)
Just a quick observation about the creationism discussion.
The creationists seem quite adept at pointing out the holes in establishment
science. Shallow commentary, such as the *Probably of Life from Non-Life*
article submitted by P. Dubuc (cbscc!pmd), indicates a fundamental difference
in which the incompleteness of science is viewed. The creationists point to
these failings of science and say that the present complex and wonderful world
must be the result of divine intervention.
When I look at the shortcomings of science, I am reminded of the excitement
of discovery that I experienced while pursuing research during my efforts to
fill some of the little holes that I could see. These shortcomings of science
offered many standing challenges for further discovery and exploration.
Isn't it interesting how the creationists and scientists see the same data
differently?
--
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!ihuxm!gjphwpmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/02/84)
What a double standard. It sounds good, but I suppose it wouldn't work the other way around. Holes in creationist theories expose it as "pseudoscience", but no matter how great the problems for evolution we are supposed to view them as great opportunities for discovery. Enough nit-picking. If someone is willing to read the original article carefully and explain to me why there is any good reason that abiogenesis ever occurred I will gladly listen. Labeling it has "shallow commentary" doesn't say anything. Also, you shouldn't be spreading this discussion to net.physics. The people there don't like it. Keep it in net.misc. OK? Paul Dubuc