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