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)