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 */