Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxq.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!ihuxq!ken
From: ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Creationism is not science.
Message-ID: <1226@ihuxq.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Sep-84 21:59:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxq.1226
Posted: Sun Sep 23 21:59:22 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 05:14:37 EDT
References: <1185@ihuxq.UUCP>, <27579@philabs.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 60

--
[I said]
>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.  

[Julie's response]
>> 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.

Oh no you don't!  Evolution is a theory about a scientific process,
*NOT* a statement about "the beginning".  Do not confuse the origins
of life on earth (about which there is evolutionary theory) with the
origin of the universe.  Creationism mixes them both together, of
course, so I understand your confusion.  And it's not necessarily
history.  I'll buy "mythology" though.

[me again]
>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.

[Julie]
>> 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!

>> Julie Harazduk {ihnp4|linus|mcvax}!philabs!jah

I'll agree that science is often not taught well, that often kids only
get "facts" to regurgitate on tests, and that evolution does not have
a pat answer for every question.  But it does have an overwhelming
body of evidence.  And it *IS* science.  It gives a naturalistic
explanation for the progression of life on earth from the simple to
the complex.  Creationism is *NOT* science.  It claims that a god or
gods stepped in and mucked with things.  Evolution belongs in public
school science classes; creationism does not.
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******  23 Sep 84 [2 Vendemiaire An CXCIII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7188     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken   *** ***