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!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!ethan From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) Newsgroups: net.origins,net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Re: Education of creationists' children Message-ID: <888@utastro.UUCP> Date: Sat, 8-Dec-84 12:33:34 EST Article-I.D.: utastro.888 Posted: Sat Dec 8 12:33:34 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Dec-84 03:07:53 EST References: <886@ihuxn.UUCP> <1231@dciem.UUCP> <2319@ihnss.UUCP> <2835@ucbcad.UUCP>, <6@osu-eddie.UUCP> Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 41 Xref: watmath net.origins:594 net.politics:6207 This is in response to a message that wasn't addressed to me particularly, but what the hell. >[Karl Kleinpaste] >It is highly unfair to attempt to simply dispense with half of an argument >by claiming that that other side doesn't approach the problem from a >rational point of view. It's not true, and the attack doesn't work. Both >sides think. Both sides reach conclusions. The conclusions just happen to be >different. I certainly don't suspect creationists of being irrational in the sense of needing to be kept away from sharp objects (or at least not more than the rest of the net :-)). I do suspect them of attempting to pass off as science certain articles of faith which stand in contradiction to what we have observed of the universe. Whether or not this constitutes irrationality is a philosophical issue. If someone insisted on believing that he could fly and proposed to try it out, then we could probably all agree that the person in question was being irrational. Since creationism has no harmful immediate practical consequences and acts to buttress a belief system that is important to creationists it less clear to me whether it constitutes irrationality. It is clear to me it isn't science. >"Evolutionists" have certain evidence which they >find compellingly convincing. Fine. "Creationists" happen to have a body of >evidence (yes, evidence, you can't just dismiss it as 100% garbage) which >they find equally compellingly convincing. Have you seen something here I missed? Or are you espousing an "I'm OK, you're OK" version of science? What do you think of the Hollow Earthers? They claim to have evidence also. The above will not be the official opinion of the University of Texas until such time as it can be reliably ascertained that hell has frozen over to a depth of at least 10 meters. "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