dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/25/85)
>> Evolution had no beginning? Sounds like Hinduism! What kind of science >> is this? Is this net.ORIGINS or net.naturalflow? >Here I will flame: >I resent your implied criticism of Hinduism! If you want to flame about the >ignorant pagans who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior, >please do so in net.religion.bigot!!! I resent your ability to read in to my statement exactly what you would like to hear and not what it actually says! I AM NOT criticizing Hinduism! I am criticizing the statement that Evolution has no beginning. If special beginning implies religion (Genesis), than no beginning equally implies religion (Hinduism). AGAIN, I AM NOT criticizing Hinduism, I am criticizing a so-called scientific theory for being amazingly similar to religion. Which is exactly what evolutionists do about creationism.
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (05/27/85)
> > I AM NOT criticizing Hinduism! I am criticizing the statement that > Evolution has no beginning. If special beginning implies religion > (Genesis), than no beginning equally implies religion (Hinduism). > > AGAIN, I AM NOT criticizing Hinduism, I am criticizing a so-called > scientific theory for being amazingly similar to religion. Which > is exactly what evolutionists do about creationism. A preconceived belief that the Universe had a beginning could well be classified as religious. A preconceived belief that the Universe had no beginning could equally well be classified as religious. On the other hand, if one holds to either view tentatively, as a working hypothesis, and is willing to let *the observations* decide the issue, that is science, not religion. Is that too complicated a distinction to understand? -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
seshadri@t12tst.UUCP (Raghavan Seshadri) (05/30/85)
> From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) > Date: 24 May 85 21:30:54 GMT > > I AM NOT criticizing Hinduism! I am criticizing the statement that > Evolution has no beginning. If special beginning implies religion > (Genesis), than no beginning equally implies religion (Hinduism). > > AGAIN, I AM NOT criticizing Hinduism, I am criticizing a so-called > scientific theory for being amazingly similar to religion. Which > is exactly what evolutionists do about creationism. I think there is a difference between arriving at a theory by empirical or other means which is later on observed to resemble some religious doctrine and trying to present a religious belief as scientific truth without credible evidence.In other words ,a mere similarity to some religion does not mean the theory is unscientific.To fob off religion under the cloak of science is something else... -- Raghu Seshadri
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/01/85)
> AGAIN, I AM NOT criticizing Hinduism, I am criticizing a so-called > scientific theory for being amazingly similar to religion. Which > is exactly what evolutionists do about creationism. [DAN BOSKOVICH] Imagine, a religionist admitting that "being amazingly similar to religion" is a reasonable basis for attacking a scientific theory. Can we assume that it is also a reasonable basis for attacking religion, which is also amazingly similar to religion? -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr