sharp@kpnoa.UUCP (06/04/84)
There is no such thing as SCIENTIFIC creationism. If you would care to state
your exact meaning, and your evidences, and your conception of the meaning of
the word "scientific", perhaps we could have more of a debate than this useless
"yes there is", "no there isn't", rather Monty Python "argument".
For all versions of creationism that I have seen (and, yes, I do try to study
the opposition), we would have to discard not only modern biology but all of
physics, astronomy and geology. We *might* get chemistry, meteorology, and one
or two others to survive. If all you mean is the inarguable "it was all created
recently to *look* as though it's old" philosophy, then forget it. My God is
not that malicious.
--
Nigel Sharp National Optical Astronomy Observatories
Tucson, Arizona (602) 325-9273
UUCP: {akgua,allegra,arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4,lbl-csam,seismo}!noao!sharp
ARPA: noao!sharp@lbl-csam.arpabrower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (06/13/84)
I agree completely that there is no such thing as "scientific creationism".
I do sometimes wonder why those who advocate such a thing make every detail
conform to the Judaeo/Christian Bible if they claim it is not religious.
Surely the scientific expertese of the writers of said document was not on
the same level as the scientific expertese available today... or even on the
same level as was the science of the Greeks, Egyptions, Myans, Aztecs, etc.
In simpler terms, "Where's the science?"
Richard Brower Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd70,hdpa,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower