Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!mhuxa!houxm!ihnp4!we13!otuxa!ll1!sb1!burl!duke!mcnc!ebs
From: ebs@mcnc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: God and Science II
Message-ID: <1747@mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Jul-83 11:19:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: mcnc.1747
Posted: Wed Jul 20 11:19:16 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jul-83 05:38:12 EDT
Lines: 17


    Ken Cochran apparantly did NOT read the last paragraph of "God
and Science". I NEVER implied that I do not believe in God (though
whether I do or not is irrelavent).
    My point is simply that people who are willing to accept the
beneficial results of science (Ken Cochran included) should also
be willing to give fair trial to results which are contrary to
their personal assumptions (e.g. evolution vs. creation). Mr.
Cochran also dismisses my argument because "whether evolution
came from strict adherance to the scientific method is debatable".
I agree with this; however, at this point in history, evolution
is the MOST SCIENTIFICALLY CONSISTANT "theory" that we have.
Creationism, despite the irrational rambling to the contrary,,
has NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.
    I do not appreciate having my argument changed by someone
whose only apparant purpose is to mislead.
                          Eddie Stokes (mcnc/ebs)