Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Set of possibilities, revisited.
Message-ID: <311@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Sep-84 12:22:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.311
Posted: Tue Sep 18 12:22:17 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 08:47:25 EDT
Organization: UW Primate Center
Lines: 43


> [Byron C. Howes]
> Ray, stop setting up straw men!  Evolutionary theory as we understand
> it no more subsumes all possible naturalistic models of origin than
> Creationism covers all possible non-naturalistic models.  (Creationists
> continually deny the validity of the notion of life on earth being
> "seeded" by an outside by otherwise naturalistic agency even though the
> "evidence" for that is indistiguishable from the "evidence" for
> creationism.)  This is one of the sillier nonsequitors that creationism
> offers us.

Again:  if we are to consider models which are non-evolutionary and
non-creative, specify what they are.  Creationists may err on the
side of making more of a dichotomy than need be, but if you are an
evolutionist, here's how it looks to one creationist (me):  continual
reference to "other theories" without saying what they are seems an
awful lot like running behind another tree when the one you were
standing behind gets chopped down.  I know that creationists seem
to do that in certain ways as well ("->" below).  I won't defend
the practice when creationists do it.  But I won't be swayed when
evolutionists do it, either.  Fair enough?  And if you think *I*
do it, I certainly encourage anyone to point that out.

> Clearly, I find the evidence less compelling than you do.  (You never did
> take up my challenge over the Paluxy datum.)  While there are seemingly
> large numbers of seemingly anomalous observations when reported a site at
> a time, they really only cover a few pages when listed separately.  Were
> the evidence *confirming* the evolutionary viewpoint listed similarly it
> would, and does, constitute volumes upon volumes.
> 
-> When confronted with explanations for these 'anomalous observations' that
-> are consistant with evolutionary theory, creationists seem just as bad
-> about dismissing them out-of-hand as they accuse evolutionary theorists
-> of being about their datum.

Will someone please post some references (Bill Jefferys posted one
a short while ago) pertaining to this controvery?
-- 
Paul DuBois		{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois

"Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein
do I delight."
				Psalm 119:35