lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (07/13/84)
> princeton!siemens!wws (Bill Smith): > Speaking of the creationism-evolution debate, to me the creationists > arguments seem to imply that the Bible is a scientific document along with > the likes of Newton's Principia and Einstein's works on relativity. Perhaps > that is a misrepresentation, but that is how I see their arguments. If by "scientific document" you mean something that can be used as scientific evidence for a scientific argument, then you are indeed misrepresenting the creationists' arguments. (You have lots of company in the media and ACLU. At least you're willing to ask whether you're perceiving it right; the others are too bigoted to.) The case for scientific creation must be based on empirical evidence, just as the case for evolution must be, and is made *without* referring to the Bible as scientific evidence. A document may be totally accurate scientifically, but this does not make it scientific evidence. I could write reams and reams of 2+2=4, but none of it is scientific evidence for anything (other than that I can write a lot). > Apparently, a Waldenbooks manager in a mall near Trenton, NJ has a different > view of things: while looking over their religious books section, what should > I find but Darwin's "The Origin of Species." To say the least this is ironic. Maybe the manager read it :-) -- The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford {ihnp4,allegra,ucbvax}!{amd70,decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab "When the English language gets in my way, I walk over it." - Billy Sunday