[net.origins] Response to Paul DuBois concerning creationist beliefs

hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/15/85)

_________________________________________________________________

Hey Paul!

So you still insist on playing cheap debating games?!

Why are you excusing your vagueness/ambiguity by saying that
evolutionists do it too?  Is this valid?  Really, Mr. Dubois!

You also have missed the point of scientists' request that
creationists specifically define their position.  Just signing
the CRS declaration does not provide that at all.  The CRS
statements are totally unscientific.  (see my next article)

When we demand your position, we are only asking for your
theory, in specifics, so that we may evaluate the scientificness
that you claim to reside in your position.  (We ARE talking
about science, aren't we?!)  Science cannot accept something
until it is fully evaluated for its scientific content and
usefulness.  Thus far, the very little specifics that are
presented by creationists do not qualify as science.  If you
must be so persistent in supporting your position as science,
then you had better substantiate it.

Since you insist on turning the tables around to confuse the
issue, I will remind you that science has already accepted
evolution, and it is certainly not in question by scientists.
Whatever hotly debated theories concerning mechanisms/rates
are also within the framework of science.  Creationism, on
the other hand has yet to be accepted by science at all!  We
still find it ridiculous and unfounded in science.  You can
sidetrack and blab about fairness or intolerance or whatever,
but that won't help creationism become scientific.

Creationism is still being considered as a whole.  Therefore,
it must have some unifying specifics to start with.  No one
has come up with that yet.  What are you waiting for?  This is
why some people, including myself, have speculated that you
are simply leaving it vague, so that in a political arena,
creationism becomes difficult to challenge.

Despite the praises given by others of your intelligence/etc...
I have yet to see you tackle the problem of the creator, as
I have presented numerous times.  It is a very simplistic
problem that seriously jeopardizes the creationist theory's
attaining scientific status.  (This topic will be posted
again for reference.)

I can assure you that keeping us in suspense does not help
your position at all.  I can also assure you that your latest
article explaining some of your points and making some silly
accusations at evolutionists does not support your position
with any real evidence.  You have simply made vague assertions
and proclaimed your righteousness based upon the denigration
of your opposition.  Hardly worthy of the high praises others
sang of you.

So what'll it be, Paul?
_________________________________________________________________

Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }