Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site uw-june
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!uw-june!palmer
From: palmer@uw-june (David Palmer)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Honesty
Message-ID: <1556@uw-june>
Date: Mon, 4-Jun-84 16:54:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-june.1556
Posted: Mon Jun  4 16:54:15 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Jun-84 01:18:52 EDT
References: <2483@allegra.UUCP> <1555@uw-june>
Organization: U. Washington, Computer Sci
Lines: 71



Unfortunately, while trying to post this article,  I accidently
reposted Larry Bickford's article (to which this is a reply).  I
vehemently reject the statements and conclusions accidentally released
under my name.  Those responsible will be asked to leave the University
:-)

Larry Bickford:
> Alan Driscoll:
> > [quoting me]
> > > Again, we are NOT talking about the "christian version of creation."
> > > This is NOT a religious discussion, but whether a certain model
> > > SUPPORTED ONLY BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCES should be presented.
> >
> > Larry, if you're telling us that creationism is a scientific
> > theory, and nothing more, then I'm calling you a liar. I just
> > don't believe that you believe what you want us to believe.

> Pardon my mistake - I assumed Netters could read. SCIENTIFIC
> creationism *is* a SCIENTIFIC model.  The favorite ploy of
> {press,courts,ACLU,etc.} is to deliberately confuse SCIENTIFIC creation
> with BIBLICAL creation.  Whether the conclusion is the same is not
> material; *how* the conclusion is arrived at *is* material. (E.g., the
> book of Ubizmo says 2+2=4; should we then discard arithmetic from
> schools?)

SCIENTIFIC creationism differs in NO respect from BIBLICAL creationism,
so I hope you can understand our confusion.  (Am I wrong, or do those
who advocate SCIENTIFIC creationism think that the BIBLE got things
wrong?)  It *is* a SCIENTIFIC model, just like flat-earth, phlogistine,
geocentrism, aether (or ether, if you study more recent models :-).
The only problem is that there is virtually no evidence for the simple
model, outside of the BIBLE.  For the more complicated model, there is
no conceivable evidence against it (far-away stars? the speed of light
is changing;  Tree rings? God made them like that to give man a sense
of history (or The Lying Devil made them to tempt man into the wicked
ways of evolution)  Dinosaurs? The slow moving Allosaurs got trapped by
the flood, while the swiftly moving three-toed sloth managed to get
from South America to Noah's ark before the rains came.)

If there were people who believed in SCIENTIFIC creationism on purely
SCIENTIFIC grounds, then maybe we would want SCIENTIFIC creationism in
our schools, along with whatever else those people believed in.
(Little green men from Mars, palmistry, cattle mutilations,
Veliokovsky, von Daniken and the Flat Earth, the Divinity of Reverend
Moon, the Rapture which came in 1982 (they're just finishing up the
paperwork now, trust me, the world has already ended))

> BTW, anyone telling me that evolutionism "is a scientific theory, and
> nothing more," is a liar.

I'm not saying that evolution(ism) "is a scientific theory, and nothing
more,"  I'm saying that evolution "is a scientific theory, backed up by
an incredible amount of scientific data compiled across an extremely
large range of physical and biological sciences,    and nothing more."

I won't be around to answer your flames, I'm graduating on Saturday.  I
may be back next year (If CalTech is on the net), but until then,
"Absence is the best asbestos -The same Anon. who wrote my bug-line"

                        The Cute Signoff of David Palmer

P.S.  The opinions expressed by Anon are not necessarily those of the
        Author, the University of Washington, or Spiny Norman (Dinsdale?)

P.P.S  So long and thanks for all the fish