Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!fortune!brower
From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Re: Did Dick Dunn Really do
Message-ID: <4225@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Sep-84 17:37:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: fortune.4225
Posted: Thu Sep 13 17:37:30 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 01:13:44 EDT
References: <1141@hao.UUCP>, <791@opus.UUCP> <3692@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 22

> 
> It seems to me that creationists are supposed to have an air-tight
> scientific model for their theory to be considered science, but
> evolutionists don't have to.  With evolution, the faith that science
> will fill in the gaps with the right evolutionistic answers is
> acceptable, but the persuit of the same answers along the lines of
> the existence of a purposeful Creator is not.
> -- 
> 
> Paul Dubuc 		{cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd
> 
>   The true light that enlightens every one was coming
>   into the world...		(John 1:9)

Gee, and here I have thought all along that an air-tight case is what
the creationists have been claiming they had.  After all, what more
argument do you need than, "God did it" and "all evidence that would
lead one to a different conclution is put there by some manevelent
creature to fool those dumb enough to be taken in".

Richard Brower		Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower