stuart@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Kurtz) (09/12/84)
First, I am eligible to respond: I do not believe that modern "scientific creationism", is scientific. Moreover, I do not believe that such "scientific creation" is correct, irrespective of whether or not it is scientific. Question 1: Yes, I would subscribe to net.origins even if there was no risk of "creation science" being mandated by law. There are several reasons for this: first, I am very interested in scientific methodology, philosophy, and history; second, I am interested in the interaction of theology and science; and finally, I enjoy a good debate. Question 2: Yes, see above. In fact, I honestly believe that "scientific creationism" has a place in education. For example, a legitimately scientific theory of creation was the precursor of our current theories of evolution. Studying how evolution came to replace creationism as the dominate theory of origins is certainly worth- while, and would demystify much of how "actual" science is done. [Note here: I do not believe that modern "scientific creationism" is in any meaningful way the intellectual descendant of nineteenth century creationism. Rather, it is the descendant of an anti-intellectual tradition within American protestant fundamentalism.] Stu