Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site philabs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!jah From: jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Creationism is not science. Message-ID: <27579@philabs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Sep-84 10:23:59 EDT Article-I.D.: philabs.27579 Posted: Wed Sep 19 10:23:59 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 20:58:10 EDT References: <1185@ihuxq.UUCP> Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY Lines: 55 In response to Ken Perlow: >The creationists' notions as to how life got going (heh, I almost >said "evolved") on earth are perfectly acceptable notions. BUT >THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE. I agree that this "notion" is not science; IT IS HISTORY. Whether you accept creation as the Bible tells of it or creation as the theory of evolution (Origins of Man, specifically) would have you believe does not change the fact that all notions of "The Beginning" are history and not science. The matter in either case is merely conjecture (or belief) based upon the evidence available. The things that can be called science are the methods of investigation into the origins of life for a better understanding of the natural world, and the application of evolution as an ongoing process. >All creationist propositions need one or >more gods to work the machinery. But if the explanation is not >naturalistic, it's not science. By definition! God seems natural enough to me! Of course, that's just because I believe in God (the Creator). >Indeed, the literal Biblical account could be completely correct, >and science--restricted to natural explanations of things--would >never stumble across it, even if every point in current evolutionary >theory were proved false! >Science doesn't explain everything--perhaps that's why so many >scientists are very religious. I couldn't have said it better myself! >So, creationists, why do you feel the need to demean your theology >with axiomatically unattainable scientific legitimacy? I mean, >belief in the Bible is nothing to be ashamed of. It's nothing to >put in public school science curricula either. Which is exactly how I feel the theory of evolution should be handled (especially since it is no more valid than the Biblical account). My reason for this is that it is very misleading to children to hear only evolution. They have to assume, until told otherwise, that it is fact. I don't ever remember any teacher making the point that this was only conjecture. I am not opposed to discussing archealogical finds, genetic mutation, or any other scientific evidence that life exists and has existed, BUT don't make it seem like Darwin's theory is the only possibility; BECAUSE IT'S NOT! "All things were made by him: and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:3 Julie Harazduk {ihnp4|linus|mcvax}!philabs!jah "And God said, Let there be Light: and there was light." Gen.1:3