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.