guest@hplvle.UUCP (guest) (09/19/84)
< is the net bug a white moth or a black moth ... depends on how much smoke... > George, that`s a lot of crap. You make a fundamental error in assuming some dichotomy between an "evolutionist" explaination and a "creationist" explaination. If you accept that there are ONLY two possibilities, then you will be prone to accept the "creationist" viewpoint when (if) they find a legitimate hole in what they SAY the "evolutionist" viewpoint is. Fact is, real scientists LOVE to find holes in existing theories...that`s how they do thier work. Before I will accept "creationism" (the definition of which seems to change depending on the sophistication of the audience Gish and co. are addressing) it must supply a coherent theory which 1. explains the anomoly which "evolution" and the rest of conventional science fails to explain (pick a legitimate anomoly, please) and 2. explains the REST of the body of scientific observation in a manner which is at least as convincing as conventional science. A fool can ask more questions... Let`s discuss this over lunch some time and leave the net less polluted David L. Rick hpfcla!hplvla!drick