hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/18/85)
___________________________________________________________________________ > From: spw2562@ritcv.UUCP (Steve Wall) > > > Creationists are not allowed to disagree, as they are connected to > > authoritarian religious organizations that tell them what they think. > > I don't know what religion you are talking about, but I do all my > thinking for myself, as do all the Christians I know. It is interesting that you did not even say that creationism has nothing to do with religion. > > In fact, Paul is the only non-evolutionist on this net that seems to > > think at all for himself. > > See above comment. I would say that there are quite a few others that have shown themselves to be quite capable, although sometime they do not show it. Sometimes I don't show it either. But let's get on with the pertinent stuff ... > > for (;;) { > > C: creation is science! > > E: no it's not! > > C: well then, evolution isn't science either! > > E: yes it is, there's all kinds of evidence! > > C: well, there's evidence for creation too! > > E: ok, what? > > C: well, evolution has this and that problem, and besides, things > > look like they were created! > > E: that's not evidence! > > C: yes it is! > > } > > Creation doesn't have to be science to be true. As I have said already in several other articles, science could ultimately be way off track with reality, but that does not make it unscientific. If there is some creator creating evidence of evolution here and there just to fool our eyes, it would be impossible for science to tell what's really going. Special creation might be true, but it is not scientific, and THAT is the whole point. > There are some things which science can't explain. This has been raised over and over. Please note that science does not claim to explain everything. Hence, there must be something which science does not explain. This point is trivial and irrelevant. > Personally, I find evolution harder to believe than creation, just > because of the problems accociated with it. Personally, I find special creation impossible to believe. Scientifically, I find special creation impossible to study due to its fundamental specifi- cations. Therefore, it has no value whatsoever in science and can be dis- carded in the trash bin along with astrology, alchemy and flood geology. ___________________________________________________________________________ TOTALLY UNRELATED: Interestingly, Ronald Reagan believes in astrology but not evolution. He believes that creationism should be taught along with evolution. He and his marvelous new educational secretary refuses to help young scientists get a reasonable college education. All this, and he expects scientists to build him his Star Wars toy so he can thumb his nose at the Soviets. ___________________________________________________________________________ Live long and prosper. Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }