rafferty@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Colin Rafferty) (05/28/85)
I have noticed, and it has been pointed out repeatedly by Padraig Houlahan,
that none of the Creationists on this net (Mr. Dubois, for a good example)
have given any reasonable explanation of why disproving Evolution will prove
Creation. That, in fact, is the main problem of this entire discussion. We
have the Creationists saying that the proof of Creationism is the disproof
of Evolution. That is definitely some back-assward logic. In fact, even if
the Creationists do manage to disprove evolution, by showing all life
arrived simultaniously, we have a new theory from Beth D. Christy waiting in
the wings (see earlier posts by her).
One day, I hope, somebody will give an objective argument (please, no more
"design" B.S.) of why Creationism is correct. In fact, the proof of
Creationism is the immediate disproof of Evolution, anyway. So why not kill
two birds with one stone? (Unless, of course, you can't prove Creationism.)
Just trying to provoke (a response).
----
Colin Rafferty { Math Department, Carnegie-Mellon University }
"According to convention there is a sweet and a bitter, a hot and a cold,
and according to convention, there is an order. In truth, there are atoms
and a void."
-Democritus(400 B.C.)