tan@iwu1d.UUCP (William Tanenbaum) (04/19/84)
A. Ray Miller is of course correct that biology textbooks should present all the SCIENTIFIC arguments for creationism along with those for evolution. But, they already do. What do you think the blank page before the title page is for?
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (02/26/85)
In article <187@iwu1d.UUCP> tan@iwu1d.UUCP (William Tanenbaum) writes: >A. Ray Miller is of course correct that biology textbooks should >present all the SCIENTIFIC arguments for creationism along with those >for evolution. But, they already do. What do you think the blank >page before the title page is for? What an incredibly intellectual comment! Obviously you know absolutely nothing about origins or are incredibly biased! Dan
hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/01/85)
======================================================================== In article dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) writes: > In article <187@iwu1d.UUCP> tan@iwu1d.UUCP (William Tanenbaum) writes: > > A. Ray Miller is of course correct that biology textbooks should > > present all the SCIENTIFIC arguments for creationism along with those > > for evolution. But, they already do. What do you think the blank > > page before the title page is for? > > What an incredibly intellectual comment! Obviously you know absolutely > nothing about origins or are incredibly biased! > > Dan But you are forgetting that he might KNOW about origins and creationism. I do not profess to know everything. But one does not need to know too much about creationism to reject it as a science. Perhaps I should repost my comment regarding God and creationism. (In short, it discusses the importance of God in creationism, and the `unscientificness` of God, thus leading to the obvious conclusion that creationism cannot be science.) The problem of God in creationism so quickly disqualifies it as science that many people do find it RIDICULOUS that anyone could seriously expect science textbooks to accept it as a science (much less an ALTERNATIVE to evolution). There are MANY OTHER REASONS for its rejection. I am NOT surprised that you find him biased or ignorant, as YOU definitely have BOTH of these qualities! ======================================================================== Keebler
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (03/01/85)
> In article <187@iwu1d.UUCP> tan@iwu1d.UUCP (William Tanenbaum) writes: > >A. Ray Miller is of course correct that biology textbooks should > >present all the SCIENTIFIC arguments for creationism along with those > >for evolution. But, they already do. What do you think the blank > >page before the title page is for? > > What an incredibly intellectual comment! Obviously you know absolutely > nothing about origins or are incredibly biased! > > Dan I have been reading this newsgroup, and its "predecessors" (net.religion, net.misc, where articles on origins appeared earlier) for the better part of two years now. I have read a number of Creationist books (*Scientific Creationism*, *What is Creation Science?*, *Evolution, the Fossils Say No!* [both editions], *The Handy-Dandy Evolution Refuter* and others) as well as books such as Hitchings' and a number of books and articles on evolution and the Creation/Evolution controversy. I have yet to see *ANY* SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR CREATION. I have seen a lot of alleged "evidence" which turns on examination to be wrong, mistaken, or distorted (both intentionally and unintentionally), but nothing that can be taken seriously from a scientific point of view. I can also see why uninformed people who are not scientists are so easily taken in by the pseudoscientific nonsense that passes for "science" in the Creationist world. As Ernest Hua points out, the people who are pushing Creationism at the ICR and the CRS will stop at nothing to foist their pseudoscientific trash upon the unsuspecting public. They are a clear and present danger to education. William Tannenbaum is absolutely right. The blank page before the title page of any High School text *does* contain a COMPLETE exposition of the SCIENTIFIC evidence for Creation. -- "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)
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (03/01/85)
> In article <187@iwu1d.UUCP> tan@iwu1d.UUCP (William Tanenbaum) writes: > >A. Ray Miller is of course correct that biology textbooks should > >present all the SCIENTIFIC arguments for creationism along with those > >for evolution. But, they already do. What do you think the blank > >page before the title page is for? > > What an incredibly intellectual comment! Obviously you know absolutely > nothing about origins or are incredibly biased! > > Dan I agree with Bill Jefferys on this one, but why not make this more entertaining. Since you know that anyone who agrees with the above comment is unbearably prejudiced or ignorant, you must surely have some strong scientific arguments for creationism in mind. I haven't seen any in this newsgroup to date, so I'm naturally curious as to what they are. "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas Austin, Texas 78712 *Anyone who wants to claim these opinions is welcome to them*