Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utastro.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!ethan From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: misc. creationist topics Message-ID: <550@utastro.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Sep-84 14:54:01 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.550 Posted: Wed Sep 19 14:54:01 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 01:12:31 EDT References: <32500002@uiucdcsb.UUCP> Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 27 [zot] It may be too late already, but I have a suggestion for the rules of discussion here. Quite a lot of Ray Miller's most recent message seem to boil down to this: "All of our mutually held highest ideals about human beings are baseless if one believes in evolution." Now personally, I think this is a crock of shit. However, I also think that it is irrelevant to this discussion group. If creationism has any scientific validity then it must be established by appealing to the evidence at hand. Ray seems to be suggesting here that because he can't see any reason not to lead a life of rape and pillage if God does not exist then the existence of God had better form the basis for our understanding of the universe. (I'm a little confused as to why a belief in theistic evolution wouldn't do as well as creationism, but that's beside the point). Let's try to discuss creationism and evolution in terms of the physical evidence. If we can't, then I submit that that simply shows that creationism is not science. If Ray really wants to categorize non-believers as being divided into hypocrites and immoral monsters then I suggest he take the argument to net.religion. "I can't help it if my Ethan Vishniac knee jerks" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas Austin, Texas 78712