jeffma (03/25/83)
Are there really some creationists out there? I mean the kind who believe that there is empirical evidence for creationism and insufficient or faulty evidence for evolution (I have no argument with creationists who hold their belief out of personal conviction, and who recognize that the scientific basis for evolution is a sound one). Larry Bickford, in his diatribe against Secular Humanism, seems to be leaning that way with his references to those "footprints" in Texas, the inability to "prove" evolution scientifically, etc.: ...only its [Secular Humanism's] views can be taught, without the unbiased presentation of OPPOSING THEORIES TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE AT HAND or OPPOSING EVIDENCE that would CONTRADICT their theories (like the footprints at Glen Rose, Texas). It says evolution is fact but HAS YET TO PROVE IT, SCIENTIFICALLY or any other way. (There are still big rewards waiting for anyone who can prove evolution.) (emphasis added) Larry Bickford, 3/24/83 I've always wanted to have a discussion with followers of that particular brand of creationism...it's the worst pseudoscience of all, because it's being used to pervert the teaching of science in schools. And that really pisses me off. So, show your colors, biblical geologists. After all, you don't have anything to be ashamed of, right? If you're going to defend your positions with the "evidence" for what is distastefully known as "scientific" creationism, don't be shy about it. On the other hand, if you don't believe you can defend it, then don't dribble its silly tenets into your arguments. Let's talk. Jeff Mayhew Tektronix P.S.: The long-awaited skeptical booklist is almost complete. The problem is that it will easily approach 1000 lines (!). Should I post it to net.sources (a place where long articles aren't a nuisance), or should I spit it out in small pieces? Let me know your preference. Thanks.