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