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: <1555@uw-june>
Date: Mon, 4-Jun-84 16:43:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-june.1555
Posted: Mon Jun  4 16:43:26 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Jun-84 01:18:38 EDT
References: <2483@allegra.UUCP>
Organization: U. Washington, Computer Sci
Lines: 23

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?)

BTW, anyone telling me that evolutionism "is a scientific theory, and
nothing more," is a liar.
-- 
			The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
			{decvax,ihnp4,allegra,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
			decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA