Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site philabs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!jah From: jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) Newsgroups: net.misc,net.flame Subject: Re: Equal Time Demanded for Creation Research Message-ID: <27432@philabs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 24-Feb-84 08:58:49 EST Article-I.D.: philabs.27432 Posted: Fri Feb 24 08:58:49 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 25-Feb-84 08:36:36 EST References: <248@idis.UUCP> Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY Lines: 24 PATH: {sdcvax,allegra,seismo,decvax}!philabs!jah One thing that everybody keeps forgetting about the creationist theory is that it does not have to be proved. People believe it out of blind faith in something that, by definition, cannot be understood. The argu- ment should not be about whether the Creationist theory is right or wrong, but instead, it should be that creationist theory is based on a religious doctrine and is thus not a science. It is impossible to win an argument against a creationist on the former issue. All they have to say is, "God planned it that way" and the argument is over. However, creationist theory can not predict future events with *the same* :>) (or in most cases -- *any*) accuaracy as any of the physical sciences. Until creationism can successfully predict evolution, celestial occurrances and the like, all the physical scientists will believe it's a lot of crap. And they are right. After all what good is a theory that can only explain the past and rarely predicts the future. Just keep it out of the schools and in the church WHERE IT BELONGS!!! flamingly yours, jah* *oh yeah, this flame is not necessarily the opinion of my company, and no part should be associated as such.