[net.origins] this whole discussion

hardie@uf-csg.UUCP (Bruce @ Univ. of Wallamaloo) (12/13/84)

	I think that this entire discussion has drifted away from the
issue of major concern.  What I think that we all should be arguing about
is whether the so-called "creation science" is really science, and therefore
valid material in school science classes.  What an individual wishes to
believe in is not really of any concern to anyone else unless it is depriving
that other of concrete rights, such as life, liberty, et. al.
	
	I personally don't care if the so-called "creation science" is placed
in the schools in a comparative religion class, or political science even, but
I have yet to see anyone present valid evidence that it is qualified to be
called science.  Disproving evolution doesn't count as proof of any other
theory, folks.

	BTW, I've found that rather often, anti-evolutionists use arguments
against evolution that are in fact arguments FOR it!!  But they make some
bizarre leap of (non)logic to end the argument against St. Darwin.(:-))


[It's no good, Col. Glenn.  It's turtles all the way down!]

-- 
	Pete Hardie, Univ. of Florida, CIS Gould
		acct:..!akgua!uf-csv!uf-csg!hardie

bjchrist@convex.UUCP (01/10/85)

/* Written 10:43 am  Dec 27, 1984 by uf-csg!hardie in convex:net.origins */
/* ---------- "this whole discussion" ---------- */

	I think that this entire discussion has drifted away from the
issue of major concern.  What I think that we all should be arguing about
is whether the so-called "creation science" is really science, and therefore
valid material in school science classes.  What an individual wishes to
believe in is not really of any concern to anyone else unless it is depriving
that other of concrete rights, such as life, liberty, et. al.
	
	I personally don't care if the so-called "creation science" is placed
in the schools in a comparative religion class, or political science even, but
I have yet to see anyone present valid evidence that it is qualified to be
called science.  Disproving evolution doesn't count as proof of any other
theory, folks.

	BTW, I've found that rather often, anti-evolutionists use arguments
against evolution that are in fact arguments FOR it!!  But they make some
bizarre leap of (non)logic to end the argument against St. Darwin.(:-))


[It's no good, Col. Glenn.  It's turtles all the way down!]

-- 
	Pete Hardie, Univ. of Florida, CIS Gould
		acct:..!akgua!uf-csv!uf-csg!hardie
/* End of text from convex:net.origins */